Talk:AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest

AEI
The existence of the wikilink makes it unneccesary to characterize the AEI as "neocon" or "conservative" or anything else since the link goes to an article where it is fully described. Furthermore, I object to the sources used. The NYT article cited says "In a forthcoming article in The American Prospect, a liberal journal, John B. Judis, a historian of American conservatism, says the debate over Iraq was foreshadowed last year in a published exchange between Mr. Buchanan and Ben Wattenberg, an author and commentator, who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative policy organization." I interpret the appellation of the label "neocon" to the liberal author John Judis and not the (supposedly) unbiased Times reporter. The LA Times cite says "a think tank associated with neoconservatism." This is a more subtle position and it open to exploration in the article American Enterprise Institute where the views of reputable political historians can be reported in a neutral way to discuss the issue. Dropping loaded adjectives in related articles is not helpful. Thatcher131 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I accept the argument that neoconservative isn't particularly appropriate for jurisprudential theory and should not have been put there in the first place.  -- David  Shankbone  03:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This harkens back to an earlier dispute in which an editor was determined to say "Joe Smith is associated with the far-right Foo party" when the article Foo party itself had no such characterization. The appropriate place to discuss how Foo party is characterized by political scientists and experts is at its own article; same principle applies here.  Thanks. Thatcher131 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not always the case, especially if it's relevant to the article. Organizations are characterized all the time in articles, especially if one deals with a misnomer such as "Public interest" when it's in reality a proponent of the corporate good.  -- David  Shankbone  03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you miss my point. The statement "Joe Smith is on the board of the industry-supported fake public interest group Foo for the Public Good" is inappropriate for the article on Joe Smith, because the nature of the organization may be complex, or in doubt, or disputed by various factions.  Better to just say "Joe Smith is on the board of Foo for the Public Good.  However, a discussion of what sort of organization FPG is is obviously appropriate in its own article.  Similarly here, I could cite as many refs saying that AEI is a conservative think tank as you can that it is neocon; rather than cause a problem with a throwaway label here, just use a neutral label and then discuss AEI's place on the political spectrum at AEI. Thatcher131 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. -- David  Shankbone  03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

POV and WEIGHT
I have concerns about recent edits. Two paragraphs of a 4-paragraph article are based on a critical 17-year-old NY Times article, which documents one reporter's impressions from attending a single 1990 banquet sponsored by this entity. To devote half of an article to a fleeting, 17-year-old criticism is inappropriate. Given my recent conflicts with the editor who made the changes, I'm not going to touch it for the next few days, but I think these concerns need to be addressed. ATren 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The logical response is: You should expand the article! We're here to share information, not take it away because we don't like it, or because we don't add two positives for every negative, or two negatives for every positive, or whatever.  So, if you feel balance is needed - you really should be the one to add the balance.  That's the way things work on Wikipedia.  Do a Google!  It's not hard.  -- David  Shankbone  13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's especially amusing is the article doesn't report on anything that this Center feels it should be ashamed about, but you consider it "criticism" - They are not ashamed of their policy advocacy and are quite open about it. But you feel it is a negative?  Interesting.  -- David  Shankbone  13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, the added text is clearly critical: "Despite it's name, its primary focus was on the corporate sector." "It is no longer only what's good for General Motors that is good for America, but what's good for Dow Chemical, Amway, Shell Oil, 3M" Are you saying that that the implication that this group is aligned with chemical companies, multi-level marketing companies, and oil companies is not intended to be critical? These are three of the least popular corporations in modern history, and this article implies that the NLCPI is doing their work, with little more evidence than guilt by association. It is undue criticism. ATren 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether these companies are the "least popular corporations in modern history" (although I think Enron, Aetna, Halliburton, Blackwater and Exxon-Mobil would raise an issue with that statement). Regardless, if you are going to counter the claims, spend time researching and providing citations.  Right now you are just "musing" that a citation of a major publication isn't fair.  If you think that is the case, the proper way to go about it is to provide a cited source for the article.  The issue is WP:V, and not your personal POV.  -- David  Shankbone  16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have researched it. I've found almost no correlation between these companies and NLCPI other than that one article from 1990, which itself seems to be guilt by association. It is undue criticism, and expanding the rest of the article to counter the criticism is not appropriate. It should be removed. ATren 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You found no indication that these companies were on their board of directors, and that the NLCPI worked on the behalf of corporate America? Really?  Because I can expand the article with citations to Googled law journals, et. al.  But if that's the case, perhaps you should provide a citation disputing the WP:V - you are not a reliable source.  -- David  Shankbone  16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I'm removing the second paragraph and rewording the third. This criticism represents 50% of the article and is based solely on a 17 year old source (which appears to be an opinion piece) that uses little more than guilt by association to imply that this organization is doing the work of unpopular corporations. It is POV and undue weight. ATren 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will revert you. You do not have consensus to remove information about what was in the group's annual reports.  Vet any changes here on the Talk page. -- David  Shankbone  16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Other sources of pro-business nature
Sources showing the corporate nature of the institution (it's really not a controversial thing):
 * "Between 1999 and 2003, Roberts also served on a nonpaying advisory committee to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an education group that takes money from corporations and promotes tort reform."
 * "Other conservative business interests quickly replicated Fluor's model. In 1975, money from the major oil companies helped to create the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization for several regional litigation groups. Each group's focus was determined by its location. The most influential spinoff group to emerge was the Mountain States Legal Foundation, financed by the beer magnate Joseph Coors, which was set up in 1977 to challenge federal land-use and natural-resources regulations, long a source of political resistance in the West. (The foundation's distinguished alumni of the period include Gale Norton, now secretary of the interior, and Jon Kyl, now a senator from Arizona.) Though these conservative groups clearly served the interests of local businesses, they also attracted a number of libertarians, many of whom were not always consistent supporters of big business."
 * [Exxon-Mobil 2006 funding sheet.
 * To facilitate this expansion the founders of the PLF, with the help of the rainmaker Fluor and the ubiquitous Richard Mellon Scaife, created the nationwide National Legal Center for the Public Interest in 1975. Viewing the term public interest as encompassing both ends of the ideological spectrum, the National Legal Center’s purpose was to replicate the PLF model in other regions. It went on to found the Mountain States Legal Foundation, what is now the Atlantic Legal Foundation, and the Landmark Legal Foundation, covering the Great Plains states, amongst others.  Again demonstrating the movement’s historically reactionary roots, the National Legal Center helped create these regional organizations by meeting with regional chambers of commerce and informing them of “the clear and present dangers of public interest law” and asking them to help create a counter-force."  University of Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal.

-- David  Shankbone  17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What you have shown here is that the NLCPI has received funding from corporate entities, but there's no statement that the "corporate sector" is their primary focus. That is OR, and is countered by your own source ("Though these conservative groups clearly served the interests of local businesses, they also attracted a number of libertarians, many of whom were not always consistent supporters of big business.") It seems there is a pattern of support for deregulation and tort reform, and while these might be considered corporate-friendly stances, this is not a corporate sector focus per se. Indeed, the fact that the NLCPI has attracted anti-regulation anti-business libertarians does not mesh with the conclusion that it is primarily a corporate sector focus. I also still have concerns about the association to Shell and Amway, which is only documented in the Times opinion piece. ATren 19:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a New York Times article that backs that up already, and it's not an Op-Ed but a reporter attending an event and reporting on it. So, there is no OR in the article.  If we can't resolve this, we can open it up for an RfC, but you should really find some sources.  I have no problem with you adding the "tort reform" language.  -- David  Shankbone  19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a 17 year old isolated article by a single reporter who is reporting his impressions of a conference sponsored by NLCPI. It is undue weight to include such an isolated criticism in a stub article. ATren 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that there are other sources that back up the corporate sponsorship of this institute, that's not the way WP:V works. He's not reporting his "impressions".  He's not writing, "It appears that" or "It seems like"; he wrote a story that was fact-checked by one of the eminent newspapers in the country.-- David  Shankbone  20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The other sources do not say anything about "corporate sector focus", and they don't mention Amway, Shell, or Dow. I did a news archive search on these companies and NLCPI and found nothing substantial. It is a single, isolated 17-year old article that appears to be more of an opinion piece than a news article. It is undue weight to include such isolated, specific criticism in a stub article, and nothing you've presented here has changed my view on that. ATren 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are questioning whether the New York Times did it's research to see who was on the Board of Directors of the NLCPI? That's not a reasonable line of argumentation.  If that were to win out as a line of argument, then any source could be taken down just because someone casually decides that a source, no matter its reputation, might be wrong.  It's not a criticism; that's your own POV interpretation of it.  -- David  Shankbone  20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of your arguments come from the wrong tact, ATren: if you feel the article is too narrowly focused, then expand it.  You only want to contract it by getting rid of a credible source.  That's not a winning argument.  If in your research you found that it does other things, then expand the article.  But removing sourced information is violative of policy, whether you like the information or not.  -- David  Shankbone  20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." ATren 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, expand the article, but there is no undue weight that this organization was funded by corporate interests. It is just a fact.  It's not even a minority viewpoint...it just is.  All the keystrokes you expend arguing the same thing could be used to expand the article.  And one sentence is hardly undue weight, ATren.  You simply don't want it in there.  -- David  Shankbone  22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "You simply don't want it in there." No, I had never heard of this entity before today. My objections are based on Wikipedia policy. It is you who "simply wants" this information in there. And since you are the one who is insisting it stays, then you should also be the one who resolves the weight concern. Personally, I believe a stub is sufficient for an entity that no longer exists and which was never very notable in the first place, but since you are the one who insists on inserting isolated 17-year-old quotes about a defunct organization, then you are responsible for providing the balancing text. ATren 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ATren, you are citing to your own personal philosophy and now handing out homework to volunteers. The Wikipedia model is that we all contribute the information we know and want to contribute.  If you feel that more should be written about this organization...then you write it.  You don't tell other people to do the work you would like to see done.  It's not the wiki way.  And the project also wants more information, not less, just because you have an issue with one sentence or a valid source, or sources as the case may be.  -- David  Shankbone  23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, there are two NPOV approaches we can take with this article: (1) a stub, like the one that existed before your edits, or (2) a more extensive article that describes both the detailed activities of the organization as well as the detailed criticisms. An article that has only one side is inappropriate, but as far as I'm concerned, a stub is more than adequate for this organization, which didn't even generate much notability when it still existed (and now it doesn't exist). You are the one who insists on adding barely notable criticism that violates weight, and as long as you insist that that criticism must stay, then you should provide the balance. If it's up to me, I'm reverting back to the stub version. ATren 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not criticism, ATren. Since you didn't know the organization existed, how would you, who is not involved in legal circles (unlike me) know anything about its notability?  You are making pronouncements on topics for which you have no expertise or knowledge.  I'm done arguing with you about it.  Perhaps an RfC will be the way to go.  -- David  Shankbone  23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And if it's so notable to someone like you in legal circles, how come you never addressed these concerns before this week? It remained as a non-controversial stub for two years, and now, after the organization has disbanded, this criticism becomes absolutely essential to include, in violation of WP:WEIGHT? What is it that changed in the last week, that makes this organization so notable now? ATren 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand what you are arguing about anymore and I do not see the correlation between how when I make an edit to an article it indicates its notability, but one thing is clear: this is a topic you don't know anything about (by your own admission). -- David  Shankbone  23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can read sources, David. Please do not imply that I am somehow unqualified to comment on this. And I have absolutely no prior opinion on this organization, so it has nothing to do with what I "want". So now that you've questioned both my motives and my intelligence, what next? Why don't you just answer to the weight issue (which you don't seem to deny) and stop questioning my qualifications in raising this issue? ATren 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addressed that there is no weight issue throughout these threads. I did not question your intelligence, but your knowledge.  I ascribed no motivations to you.  But, we aren't going to convince each other, so no need to continue to discuss it.  -- David  Shankbone  00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remaining POV concerns
I still disagree with the unqualified use of the "Dow, Shell, Amway" claim. This is clearly a criticism, and to not label it as such is POV. The Times author is the only person who has ever made this claim, that somehow this organization is sacrificing the public good for the good of three unpopular business entities. There was no evidence cited in the article, it was a passing claim, and to not qualify that this is criticism from one individual is POV.

David, you've provided sources that say this org was funded by corporate entities. I added a line that says just that, and you revert it - twice. Instead, you are now edit warring to include the single most critical line in that critical opinion piece, an allegation that has never been repeated elsewhere before or since, and to label it as if it were fact and not opinion.

There is a vast difference between saying (a) NLCPI is funded by corporate interests (yes it is), (b) NLCPI generally takes positions that are pro-business (perhaps) and (c) NLCPI is acting at the behest of Dow, Shell, and Amway (not supportable as anything but a critical opinion). You not only want to include (c) exclusively, but you also want to present that opinion as if it were fact. That is POV. ATren 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a criticism, and you are the only one who has seen a problem with that line. If it's a criticism, shouldn't it be obvious?  If it's obvious, why do you need to say it's a criticism?  Well, because essentially it's not...it was an observation.  As User:Newyorkbrad--whose judgment you said you respected--told you,  this article contains nothing overtly unacceptable.  And since the observation is attributed to the observer, per Newyorkbrad's advice, it is not presented as fact.  It's POV to label as criticism what was a neutral observation; the piece itself is not critical (I don't know if you read it or not).  We can leave the POV tag up until User:Swatjester gives you another opinion.  -- David  Shankbone  03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have also added information under the guise of "preparing for the page move". Please clearly identify when you are adding such new information... like for example, the specifying funding from Exxon, but not indicating that the total amount is trivial - 155K over ten years. I find it hard to fathom how it is NPOV to mention Shell, Exxon, Amway, and Dow Chemical in a short article about an organization that is primarily focused on free enterprise and tort reform and has had almost no interaction with those companies other than a trivial amount of funding. There is no reason to mention these specific companies, other than to imply guilt by association.


 * You have cited multiple reliable sources that call them pro-business, but then insist on documenting tenuous associations to these 4 specific controversial business entities. If they are pro business, call them pro business, not pro-Amway, not pro-Exxon, not pro-Dow, not pro-Shell. And if you insist on calling them pro-AmDowShellEx (which I strongly disagree with, but if you insist), then we must either cite something other than a critical opinion, or clearly document it as a critical opinion. ATren 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not trivial amounts. Regardless, mentioning funding sources of an educational center is not something that goes against either the aims or interest of this project.  I am not using some of the watchdog groups as sources, but there are plenty of those out there that we can cite to, if you would prefer me to go that route.  But talking about who funds a policy center is not only wise, but necessary.  We are here to educate, ATren, and your arguments are not making a whole lot of sense to me, but instead sound like you are trying to whitewash.  Additionally, that corporations are funding a "public interest" law center is significant in and of itself.  But they were quite open about this, and you are the one claiming it is a negative.  Why is it a negative?  -- David  Shankbone  04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you need to see other pages on Wikipedia that deal with funding issues, you can look at Accuracy in Media or Media Matters for America, where there are entire sections.  -- David  Shankbone  04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then what about Shell, Amway, and Dow? I haven't seen any evidence they have funded. And yes, 1.5% of total revenue (my rough calculation, based on 15K per year) is trivial. And no, I'm not trying to whitewash, but it sure as heck sounds like you are trying to once again insert negative associations in an article related to a certain someone. As long as you're going to accuse me of "whitewashing" and "shadowing you", we might as well question your motivations as well. Why exactly did you become so interested in this organization, David? ATren 04:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep addressing the same argument ad nauseum. To answer your question:  Because I work in law, ATren.  I went to law school, and I also do public interest volunteer work.  This is my field.  And because I paid significant money to acquire knowledge and training on these issues, I understand them.  What's your field?  -- David  Shankbone  04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The page looks remarkably neutral to me. I don't see any real reason for the neutrality tag. the Dow/Shell/amway thing seems like a notable statement, sourced, and certainly not undue weight, moreover it seems somewhat appropriate given the relative fame of the phrase "what's good for General Motors is good for America". &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I will concede. I plan to research more into this organization, so I may be adding more information in the coming weeks. -- ATren (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Keeping articles a stub is never optimal, which is why the template has the message "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it".  More information on the article would be very welcome.-- David  Shankbone  19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break
Yes, it's a problematic statement. It has lots of heat but no light. It's a great soundbite but it's not encyclopedic criticism. The true criticism is that the organization supposedley supports bi business at the expense of others. If there is a reliable source that makes that claim in a way that can be expressed with NPOV, it should be included. But a columnists soundbite? No.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All heat and no light it doesn't even come close. In one statement we learn who is on the NLCPI's board of directors and what their focus is.  That's quite a lot of light, and unless the statement "What's good for American is good for GM" could be seen as a criticism, it's logical extension can't be either.  Aside from the fact that the entire piece is not written as a criticism, that makes no sense.  -- David  Shankbone  04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * David, you have now reverted two separate editors on this issue. DHeyward has expressed my exact concerns - and he did it much better than I was able to do. "Soundbite", "heat and no light", and "unencyclopedic" all pretty much describe it for me.


 * And I might add, Newyorkbrad didn't exactly give it a ringing endorsement. So that's at least two who disagree with this quote, and one on the fence.


 * Can we try to settle this amicably? You obviously feel there should be criticism, and we feel like the critical phrasing you selected is unencyclopedic. Let's work it out then, and come to a compromise wording that works for all of us. A revert war will get us nowhere. ATren (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the logical extension, it's a juxtaposition. It is no longer only what's good for General Motors that is good for America, but what's good for Dow Chemical, Amway, Shell Oil, 3M and others represented on the legal center's board of directors. The original quote was about whether the SecDef would make decision detrimental to GM (answer was "yes" but such a situation was not foreseeable because ....), while this one is about the interest of the board of directors. The entire article was critical in both tone and content. I did not see any praise at all. It was negative through and through. I would be interested in hearing what you thought wasn't negative. I don't minding sourcing to exclusively critical material, but the quote is undue weight. It should be paraphrased as the sum of intellectually substantial criticism. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny, because two admins running for ArbCom did not see a problem with the quote. How is that piece critical?  -- David  Shankbone  04:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, in tone and content. Word choice and what he highlights in quotes.  It's obviously critical.  It culminates in this

Perhaps the term public interest lawyer is what the economists describe as infinitely elastic. Or perhaps the phrase has reached that stage of terminal exhaustion and utter meaninglessness described by Orwell in Politics and the English Language.

If, after all, the American Way can be usurped by liberals, perhaps public interest is fair game for conservatives. It was enough to make one dinner guest, Dean Monroe Price of the Cardozo Law School, wax nostalgic. The implication is that "public interest" and "conservative" are not compatible defintions. Certainly he is implying that the subject of his article did not fit the definition of "public interest." The whole article implies that the organization exists for the interests of it's board of directors and corporate interests without regard to "public interest" and that is indeed critical. I saw nothing that wasn't critical. Please point out anything positive as I didn't see it. To turn it around so you may see it from a point of view the author alludes to, imagine an article that examined the "patriotism" of Democrats by postulaing that "patriotism" has been redefined into it's "Orwellian" definition. I don't think that would be a postive article for Democrats and we certainly wouldn't call it a neutral depiction of our patriotism. --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true, and your "patriotism" analogy doesn't hold water because patriotic has never been the providence of one political party or ideology. The implication was a fact: that public interest law was a bastion of liberalism.  That's hardly contestable.  And yes, the definition of "public interest" does not fit.  That's the whole point.  Do you have any legal background?  Public interest law is about what is in the best interest of the public and for individuals.  Thus, one would not find a public interest legal center arguing against the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Corporations are motivated by profit; the theory of the corporation has that central element.  The public interest and the profit motive often conflict; regardless corporations are not seen as individuals.  The notable column doesn't criticize, as much as try and explain a discrepancy, one that clearly many people at that lecture were perplexed by. The other sources I cite above, including a law journal at a major school, verify that.  Should we expand the section, then, or should we include the law journal that explores the public interest aspect?  Because your wanting to remove a source--the national legal affairs editor at The New York Times--is unacceptable and will be cause for an RfC, especially since two admins, both of whom are running for ArbCom, saw no issue with it.  One of them is a lawyer.  -- David  Shankbone  15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is the point of why it's not neutral. Your view that "public interest" is in conflict with this organization is a bias that has crept into the article.  There is no truth to the fact that any particular piece of legislation is in the public interest.  ADA may or may not be in the public interest.  It is certainly a special interest just as corporate interests are special interest.  This article should not be the platform for your particular view.  Like I said, the criticism should be broad. The source can stay, the quote needs to go and be replaced with criticism of substance.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether I hold that view or not is irrelevant. Nobody is citing to me, we're citing to credible sources.  This is WP:V.  The sentence does not read "they argued against the ADA, which is against the public interest."  Your confusing that.  Regardless, we now have four editors, two of whom are admins and running for ArbCom, and two who are lawyers, seeing no problem with the quote.  -- David  Shankbone  16:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article as now stands seems perfectly neutral to me. I don't see any agenda pushing at all. It's hard to make a conservative group look liberal, and from reading the refs, they do seem to be motivated by self-interest. As such, this disputed comment seems a logical way of giving a secondary source (and a very reliable, reputable one as well) to illustrate that. If other editors think the quote gives undue weight to so-called criticism of the organization, the better solution would seem to be finding material to counter weight it. Otherwise it would seem that the article is being pruned to support a one sided view. Jeffpw (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A columnist's isolated soundbite from a 17-year-old critical opinion piece is unencyclopedic and undue weight. There are other ways to frame this criticism that are NPOV. DHeyward and I agree on this. Why don't we come to agreement on a phrasing that works for all? Dheyward and I have tried several alternate versions, and David reverts them on sight. That's not going to resolve anything. Let's discuss it rationally and come to an NPOV statement that we can all accept. ATren (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's great that you guys agree, but User:Swatjester, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Jeffpw and myself also agree that there is nothing wrong with quoting the national legal affairs director of the New York Times. But if you would like to make proposals, please do so below.  -- David  Shankbone  16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what Newyorkbrad actually said (emphasis mine):
 * "In general, I would say that this article contains nothing overtly unacceptable, although it can certainly stand to be further developed. I would point out, though, that David Margolick's "At the Bar" column in The New York Times was largely a human-interest and opinion column, rather than a news column, and that the sentence of the article quoted from Margolick was his personal opinion of the organization rather than a news report. Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found to summarize the organization's position on the ideological spectrum. Hope this helps."
 * He did not give blanket approval to this text, as you seem to be implying on this page. In fact, he specifically said it would be better to find a "more reliable source... to summarize the organization's opinion." Please don't imply that he endorsed this wording unconditionally, because he very clearly did not. (And, FWIW, he specifically requested that we not involve him in this, so there is really no need to continue bringing him up.)
 * Now, can we please work on a consensus version that is acceptable to all? DHeyward and I have already made several attempts in the article itself, which you vetoed on sight. Perhaps you or someone else in the debate should give it a try. ATren (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You further developed the article, the quote is attributed to Margolick and Newyorkbrad did not feel anything was objectionable.  You were the one who approached him, and since he specifically told you that he and I had problems, it's even more glaring that he did not object to something I put in.  As to your last question, you don't need to ask permission to make a proposal below - just make it.  Here, on the talk page.  Since four editors see no problem with quoting the national legal affairs director of The New York Times about a legal affair, in line with Verifiability and NPOV ("NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."), the onus is on you to propose an acceptable alternative, while remaining true to those polices.  I'm willing to entertain proposals here on the Talk page, but currently consensus--and policy--is against removal.  -- David  Shankbone  17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad could probably clarify his position, except for the fact that he explicitly asked that he not be involved in this - so why do you keep trying to draw him into it? I asked his advice, he provided a qualified response that can be taken either way, but since he has no intention of getting involved, why should we try to somehow interpret his statement? There are four, maybe 5 (SwatJester?) editors here on the page, and it breaks down 2-2 or 2-3. So let's forget about NYB, and let's work together to try to find a way to make it 5-0, OK? ATren (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You solicited an opinion, you were given an opinion, and that opinion counts and does not need to be found on this page to do so. And that opinion was that there wasn't a problem quoting Margolick, but to attribute it to his column.  Regardless, since you have no asked a third time I will tell you a third time: there is nothing wrong with making a proposal for improving the article.  If that proposal includes taking out a notable statement made in a column by David Margolick, national director of legal affairs of The New York Times, it will be a hard sell.  But you can stop asking and start making proposals here on the talk page, of course.  -- David  Shankbone  20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Echoing David here, it seems odd that Margolick should be seen as an acceptable source in 10 different articles on Wikipedia, but not seen as acceptable here, Column or not, he was writing in his capacity as employee of the NYTimes, It was not a personal blog. As the paper of record for the United States, it seems a solid source for a quote. Jeffpw (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, Margolick is well known for his impeccable sourcing. What will he quote next, the Weekly World News? ;-) ATren (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an amusing attempt to do "guilt by association" that you were decrying earlier, but of course nobody said that the information was inaccurate. Of course, Stanford University has their own article about the issue at hand here: Fair and Balanced; Writer David Margolick knows there are many sides to every story.  Regardless, none of this has anything to do with what we are discussing, Margolick's notability and an observations he made in a prominent position at a prominent verifiable source about the subject of the article; your straw man is duly noted, ATren - doesn't much help you that you are reaching so desperately (and still offering no alternative despite three times asking if you could do so).  -- David  Shankbone  17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You reverted my alternative, David - twice - yet have offered no alternative of your own. It's in your court. As for "guilt by association" - well, I thought that was OK here, no? :-) ATren (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * hehe - well, since this Center's board of directors was comprised of the corporate world, is it really "association"? Regardless, most editors see no problem with the quote and you should put forth new wording here on the Talk page for others to see it instead of alluding to it in edit histories.  As it stands now, most people don't see a problem except for two editors, versus four. -- David  Shankbone  18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, you have my version (in the histories). You object to it, but offer no alternative. DHeyward also objects, and you reverted his version too. It's in your court. I'm not going to war, and I'm not going to offer up multiple versions for you to veto. It's clear that the current set of editors on this page is at an impasse, so might as well leave it the way it is for now, under dispute, until someone suggests an alternative acceptable to all. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. ATren (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A fresh start?
For those of us trying to understand, can one of you sum up what is presently under dispute? To my eyes, it seems there's a perfectly good quote from a Margolick column. I skimmed that column, which seems to be a fairly dispassionate column outlining how the org. approaches "public interest" from a different perspective than had previously been the norm. I suppose you could call it "critical," but as such things go it's certainly not a "hit piece" slamming the organization from a place of extreme bias.

So, what is at issue? (Call me lazy, but I'm not willing to read through the entire discussion to catch up on this one point.) Is it the inclusion of the quote itself, or the way it's characterized?

I think that summing it up will make it a lot easier for other people to catch up and weigh in, which in turn might lead to wording that will be satisfactory to all parties. For an arbitrary start, how about each of you (David S. and ATren, and anybody else who's still active in the discussion) sum up what you'd like to see, and what you don't want to see, in, say, 5 sentences or less. -Pete (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DS: We have a the former national legal affairs editor of The New York Times, David Margolick, well-known for providing a balanced view (notably, his piece on Jack Abramoff, which I read) who simply reported on an event where the participants were surprised by the nature of 'public interest' as defined by the organization.  In one quote he sheds lights on: who is on the board of directors and what the groups aim is.  I'd be happy for any number of other quotes to be used from the piece, but as historical context of an organization I think the quote I chose was the best, from a notable, prominent, verifiable source. Three other editors, when they reviewed the page, saw no problem with the source or the quote, as worded: User:Jeffpw, User:Swatjester and User:Newyorkbrad.  The last two are admins running for ArbCom; Newyorkbrad is a lawyer. -- David  Shankbone  03:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, the piece is clearly a criticism. Look at DHeyward's analysis above. And Newyorkbrad clearly asked not to be involved, so please stop bringing him into this. I'd ask him to clarify his ambiguous statement, but he asked us not to. Your continued reference to him is not helpful.
 * Pete, the entire tone of the article is critical. If you like, I will point out the details, but you might also like to review DHeyward's comments above - he summarizes nicely. ATren (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What Newyorkbrad said--after you solicited him--was that he saw nothing objectionable about the page, but that he didn't want to get involved, meaning he doesn't want to take part in the discussion. He gave an opinion, and was done with it.  Of course you don't want the opinion you solicited raised: it works in your disfavor.  But he hasn't retracted it and it still informs consensus.  You don't have to like the answer you were given, but it's poor form to want to discard it.  -- David  Shankbone  04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, look up above to his quote. He specifically said a more reliable source of criticism would be better, and he specifically asked to no longer be involved. I am respecting that, you are not, and your insistence in trying to re-involve him in this debate after he specifically asked you not to is starting to look like harassment. Leave him out of it, please. ATren (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a diff to support that last statement? Because nothing in this diff supports anything you just said, and in fact, you are twisting his words to mean things he did not say ("Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found to summarize the organization's position on the ideological spectrum. Hope this helps.")  Really, ATren, there is no need to twist another editor's words to suit your needs. Play nice. -- David  Shankbone  04:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am sure that a more reliable source can be found to summarize the organization's position on the ideological spectrum." He was ambiguous, and he didn't want to get involved specifically because of you. Why do you steadfastly refuse to accept that? ATren (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, for starters I can think of few things that I (personally) care less about than either of your perspective on the perspective of somebody who isn't really involved. If we can't keep this discussion focused on the content of the article, rather than the editors involved, I'll be moving on. However, I'm hopeful that we can resolve this to the satisfaction of both of you, so I suggest we give that a shot. You guys can comment on each other and other editors all you want, but for my part I'll be ignoring that.

I think that we can all agree that the Margolick piece is critical of the organization, to some degree. What I do not hear is why that is an argument not to include it as a source. Often a critical piece is exactly the thing required to balance out the self-promotion put out by an organization, and give an article some balance. The entire foundation for a balanced article, in my view, is to use enough sources that no one source's bias dominates the article, and that a variety of points of view are represented.

ATren, could you clarify: are you opposed outright to the use of this source? Or merely to the way it's characterized? If we were to accept your characterizing intro that has been reverted, would that resolve the issue for you, or are you looking for something else? How about if we try to rework it, as you suggested above? -Pete (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pete, my basic position is this: the quote from Margolick is a soundbite. It's a provocative statement from a critical opinion piece, a statement that has no support from the rest of the article or from any other source. The implication is that this org acts in the interests of these three quite unpopular companies, but in fact, there is no evidence that NLCPI has ever done anything in the interests of those particular companies. It's an isolated soundbite from a 17-year old opinion piece that (in the words of DHeyward above) sheds much more heat than light.


 * Other sources claim, pretty convincingly, that NLCPI is pro-business. That is the crux of the Margolick piece, and the Salon article also makes that claim. To say they are pro-business is non controversial, especially when tied to these sources. However, to use an isolated 17-year-old quote that implies that NLCPI is a pawn of Amway, Dow and Shell Oil - well, that seems like something someone with a strong anti-NLCPI POV would want to include.


 * So, to include a paragraph that says something to the effect that "NLCPI has been criticized as being pro-business" would be fine, but to include that loaded quote is unacceptable, IMO. ATren (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I suppose I can see how that sentence might seem a little snarky, however it includes factual information, that highlights how the organization differs from others with its professed mission: that its board is represented by those companies. That is much more informative than "pro-business," which can mean a lot of things: a group of convenience store owners could be called "pro-business," too.

If this were phrased such that it lifts the factual information from the quote, but phrases it in a less biased tone, and noting the age of the article, would that help? I'm not sure what brings you to say that these specific corporations are unpopular. They are what they are.

It might be helpful if one of us tracked down who is currently on their board. You suggest, if I understand correctly, that their present board's makeup might be significantly different, but I don't think any of us know that for sure; I'm sure that information is readily available, if not on the web, then by calling the Sec. of State of whatever state AEI is incorporated in. Any volunteers? -Pete (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pete, the age of the article is already mentioned and always has been. Based upon Newyorkbrad's suggestion, the quote was attributed to David Margolick's column, attributing it to his observation.  -- David  Shankbone  07:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The fact that the date is mentioned, I think, addresses that part of ATren's objection; if there's more recent analysis to add, that's fine, but I think any halfway intelligent reader will understand that 1990 is not 2007. ATren, do you have any further objection to the timeliness issue? -Pete (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I'm done with it. David, add whatever you want, I no longer care. You are clearly more motivated to pursue Ted Frank than I am to stop it. ATren (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Atren, I thought we were getting somewhere -- at least from my point of view, we were just starting to articulate what the issues are. I don't see a lot of arguing in the recent history, but establishing simple principles, which should allow us to come up with a solid formulation soon. And I don't see what this has to do with Ted Frank, not directly. No editor's motives matter much if we can stick to the specific issues at hand.

Anyway, I did a little poking around on the AEI web site, and it doesn't look to me like the LCPI has a separate Board anymore, so it's a little more difficult to pinpoint whose interests are represented independent of AEI. But the AEI board includes people from Exxon Mobil, Merck, American Express, State Farm Insurance, Dow Chemical. To my eyes, that's a pretty similar list to the one articulated by Margolick in 1990. -Pete (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (And please note, I'm not trying to include the "least popular" companies or anything like that, simply the only company names I personally recognize.)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115144644/http://www.aei.org/research/AEI%20Legal%20Center/about/projectID.30/default.asp to http://www.aei.org/research/AEI%20Legal%20Center/about/projectID.30/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928211545/http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2469 to http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2469
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105055054/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/news/feature/2005/08/11/roberts_business/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/11/roberts_business/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)