Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 1

few Sources, pre-2010
Sources needed 

We need citations for the political breakdown of ALEC membership, otherwise it's completely unsupported. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.alecwatch.org/ for information on the political breakdown of the ALEC membership, which is predominantly Republican. It has been disheartening to see how much this page has been edited -- by political operatives and/or ALEC's staff -- to remove important information about the group which it may not want the world to know.


 * There's clearly been an attempt to whitewash the article. I've restored the deleted sourced content. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One source doesn't make something true

The only source that is used on this page is from ALEC Watch which is outdated and inaccurate. A lot of comments talk about how ALEC is made up of mostly Republicans, which is somewhat true (about 2/3 GOP to 1/3 Democrat.) But if fails to mention that ALEC's National Chair is a Democrat, in addition to the last national chair also being a Democrat. Any college student or professional that uses ONE citation on a research article would be laughed at and discredited on the spot. Do more research and get over the fact that there is more positive press about ALEC than negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonnyboy1544 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

This page also cite's ALEC's own website... making two citations. If you think that it is important to mention that ALEC's chair is a Dem, then put in the article. --Cjs56 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Alecwatch

The website www.alecwatch.org shows no signs of having been updated since 2002. Is it still a relevant link in this article? Is there a better/more current link available to an opposition position?

This article looks terrible

1) 2 of the 4 sources are from highly partisan sites. We should look for more neutral sources.

2) The article is poorly organized. When I figure out how to make tables and what not I will fix this asap

3) Why is global warming the only issue they advocate on discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Reads Like an Ad

Since IP user 207.155.218.26 began making edits a few days ago, ALEC's page looks more like an advertisement for the organization than an unbiased, factual analysis of its activities. Almost every new source, for example, links directly to the ALEC website. For the sake of objectivity, I think changes need to be made. --Williston K (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. A rewrite is definitely in order. Yilloslime T C  05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes. It is still a work in progress, but I think it is better than what existed before. --Williston K (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

7/5/07 - Political philosophy and composition
I went to Alec's webiste today and saw the word "conservative" but never saw the word "Jeffersonian." I also saw the pictures of five Republicans and no Democrats or independents. In addition to the pictures of five Republicans I saw the names of two Republicans, but no Democrats or Independents. Ergo, the term "conservative" is more appropriate than Jeffersonian (which may be on the website, but not on the mainpage or the "about" page) and it is fair to say that it is primarily composed of Republicans as there is NO evidence whatsoever from their website that they have a single member that is not a Republican. So you can stop arguing that Ocenia has always been at war with Eastasia or whatever it is that some of you have been arguing on this page; it's tough to tell as it has been un-adulterated kool-aid drinking propagandic drivel with no basis in reality. I speak specifically to IPs 12.168.68.11 and 76.189.35.30. Unless you can come up with some justification to for your newspeak, please stop vandalizing this article. --Cjs56 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? None of the recent edits are "propagandic" or vandalism and I resent the implication that the edits are being made in bad faith.  They don't espouse an opinion either way on the organization, its members or its goals.  I am trying very hard to remain calm and to retain the assumption of good faith in the face of your adversarial comments.  I don't know if you have an agenda here but I will tell you bluntly that I do not other than to make sure that the article is as factual and complete as we can make it.  So let's break the edits down specifically:
 * Political philosophy - Jeffersonian vs Conservative If you look at their descriptions of their political philosophy (which are documented on their website), it lines up much more closely with the Wikipedia description of Jeffersonian political philosophy than with the Wikipedia article on Conservatism. I concede that most Americans today consider "Jeffersonian" to be a subset of "conservative".  That has not always been the case even in the US and is not the case in most other countries.  (In most cultures, a Jeffersonian philosophy is considered radically liberal.)  The truth is that they really are very different political philosophies.  See the Nolan Chart for one take on the difference.  In my opinion, ALEC uses the word "conservative" on the front page of their website because everyone thinks they know what "conservative" means but almost nobody would recognize "Jeffersonian".  They are writing to a mass audience.  We at Wikipedia have advantages in the ability to hyperlink and cross-connect to more precise descriptions.  We are not limited to just "liberal" vs. "conservative". So, after reading their webpage and our political articles, what evidence do you have that their political philosophy is not Jeffersonian and that Conservatism is the better link?  Do you have anything other than the opinion expressed in your edit summary that you consider them "fascist"?
 * Membership includes "private sector advocates" I have no idea why you keep reverting that edit. It's documented both on their website and on the opposition blog alecwatch.org.  Alecwatch would have you believe that it's a strong negative - that it's a priori evidence of special interest status.  In my opinion, it is neither positive or negative but I don't know how you can conclude that adding that clause creates a favorable bias to the article.  May we assume that part of the revert was an oversight?
 * Membership is "composed primarily of Republicans" As has already been explained in the edit summary, "primarily" is significantly higher than "mostly" but less than "exclusively". That assertion of membership has never been sourced.  On the other hand, both your edit summary and the external sources agree that the organization's membership is "bipartisan".  I find the description of the organization's membership as "bipartisan" and "primarily Republican" to be incompatible and confusing.  The insistence on that clause creates an appearance of bias without any underlying basis to substantiate the claim.  The fact that ALEC currently highlights a few Republican members on their webpage is weak evidence for an assertion that their membership is "primarily Republican" and, to the extent that we make any inferences, must be balanced against what is known about their leadership.  Their page about their Executive Board of Directors shows National Chair - Dolores Mertz (D) First Vice Chair - Steve Faris (D) Second Vice Chair - L Patrick Engel (was D until 2006 when he switched to R) It's not until you get down to Treasurer that you get to the first long-term Republican on their Executive Board.  An organization whose top two leaders are Democratic can't plausibly be described as "primarily Republican" unless we have evidence to support that claim.  So again, do you have anything sourcable on current membership statistics? Note:  I'm not saying that they are predominantly Democratic either.  I'm saying that we don't know because the organization does not choose to publish their membership lists (or if they do, I haven't been able to find them).  Until we do know, the clause needs to be removed as unsourced.
 * I hope that explains the edits a little better and that we can stick to observable facts as we edit this article. 12.168.68.11 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I deleted the phrase "public sector advocates" in error. I think it belongs in the article. Also, in regard to the term "primarily Republican", you win. However, your argument that they only use the term Conservative instead of Jeffersonian is because it is more accessible is flawed. ALEC is not an organization which appeals to the general population. Instead it appeals to legislators and "private sector advocates" who are, theoretically, more politically saavy and would comprehend the difference. If they were Jeffersonian, they would say it. --Cjs56 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. I still disagree about "jeffersonian" but want to wait for others to join in the debate. In the meantime, I don't think that a press release about alumni from 2002 is necessarily relevant today.  In 2002, the House and Senate were majority-held by Republicans.  Since their alumni list only showed current officeholders, you'd expect a majority of Republicans regardless of the proportions within their membership.  Any number of factors could have influenced the inclusion of a member on that list.  By presenting the alumni list as indicative, you've introduced a selection-bias into the analysis.  I also don't know that they deliberately keep the membership lists "secret" - it may just be that we haven't asked or looked in the right place yet.  I would prefer that we remove that section until we have something more definitive.  12.168.68.11 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The press release from 2002 is definitely relevant today. If we were quibbling over the term "majority" when the 2002 numbers were 11 to 10 or some similar proportion, I would cede the point immediately.  However, a ratio of something like 20:1 is significant, and I doubt that the numbers would change so much in five years that they would enter "quibbling" territory.  My post's here may be a bit sporadic and terse in the near future, as I am going to be very very busy in the near future in my real life. --Cjs56 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent
What does this sentence mean?

"This resulted in the issuing of a FOIA request by the Wisconsin Republican Party against Cronon; Paul Krugman and the American Historical Association defended Cronon's right to conduct public political research, and decried the apparent attempt at intimidation."

"Issuing a FOIA request ... against Cronon"? Wouldn't an FOIA request be a request FOR something? For what? What information was being requested? Why? Why is it bad to request information? Why would Cronon want to conceal information?

Also - might be a little more readable by replacing the semicolon with a period.

The topic of this entry is interesting. The quality of the writing is totally discrediting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So why not go ahead and reword it? I've done so.  Rostz (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

resource
Inside the ALEC Dating Service by Mark Pocan, October 2011 issue in The Progressive. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy by John Nichols on December 9, 2011 - 8:44am ET, excerpt ... See Political activities of the Koch family, 99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

category
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy" section - WP is NOT for "propaganda, advertising and showcasing"
Most of what has been put in this section is not encyclopedic in nature, it is self-promotion, and use of Wikipedia as a noticeboard for advocacy campaigns.

For instance, the fact that x____ did an article on ALEC is not notable in and of itself, and NOT a controversy. A controversy is incident or issue-based. The former is promotion.

Protests. Not particularly notable. No or almost no reliable sources, no major coverage, no discussion of issues, and the one marginally reliable source, the Cincinnati alternative newspaper gave a VERY generous estimate of attendance, and had to note that most attendees were "overly suspicious and not that well-informed". This is coming from a sympathetic but independent source. There is a REASON no reliable news sources covered them. They are NOT notable. No doubt whatsoever they happened, and a preliminary google search yields at least 20-30 well-funded online campaigns to get people to go to these. By my count, that means for each social media or online advocacy campaign, there was a yield of 5 actual people. Not impressed. Prove me wrong or it should be blanked.

Publication of internal docs. OK, agree; this is interesting. Definitely worthy of an entry, but ONE. Publishing that these were leaked, fine, that they are made easily (actually not so much) accessible and are a tool to find out what ALEC is doing (again, not so much, but letting slide), fine. Publishing the docs, lists, and that there was a special edition of commentary, also fine. Publishing them and RE-PUBLISHING and then RE-POSTING every section, opinion piece, sub-list, without any attempt at NPOV balance; totally out of line.

Boycott campaign. Fine to include, but NPOV requires disclosure of WHO Color of Change is, what both sides of the issues they are complaining about are, and both support AND criticism of the boycott. That is the essence of what NPOV is. Making the entry a poster board for every micro-announcement from involved parties on the "progress" or their pet project is the very definition of what Wikipedia IS NOT. Color of Change (pro/con), issues raised (pro/con), boycott campaign (pro/con) and result (pro/con IN SUMMARY, NOT DETAIL). THAT is the structure for an NPOV WP controversy entry. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here from a request at COIN. I don't see a conflict of interest. However, the article has several problems. For example: -   Controversies section - Severing controversies of the ALEC from ALEC's timeline history creates a NPOV imbalances that does not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. Also, as 209.6.69.227 points out above, the article is about ALEC, and information in the article needs to be about ALEC. The information about others can be put in articles about those others. For example, "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" would belong in the NPR article (if it belonged anywhere at all) or in an article about what radio stations air. The info published about ALEC by NPR might belong in this article, but NPR's own actions do not. I suggest taking all the info in the controversies section and moving it into the history section in a chronological order. Then, take a look at what you have and remove the things that are not relevant to ALEC or that do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. -    Publications section - The information in the publications section is not publications but instead describes actions/events of ALEC. Such information belongs in the history section in chronological order. If you want to list publications by ALEC, add that information by using Template:Citation. -    Organization section - The organization section is not about how ALEC is organized. It's a list names. Who cares. If the people are important to ALEC, their name will be in the history section along with what they did regarding ALEC. Those organization tables in the article come directly from ALEC rather than from coverage in reliable sources that are independent ALEC. If a reliable source independent of ALEC didn't care to publish that information, why should Wikipedia publish that info in the article text? The minutia in those organization tables do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. The article has a template infobox organization at the top that has parameters to add names of people running ALEC. I suggest deleting all the tables in the organization section and revising the history section and the template infobox organization accordingly. -    History section - The present history section also merely list names. Again, who cares. ALEC's history section needs to be revised to be a continuous, systematic chronological narrative of past important, unusual, and interesting events that relate to ALEC. -    The lead - The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. see MOS:LEAD. Instead, the ALEC lead appears to be the body of the article rather than summarize the body of the article. The information in the lead also needs to be written in the body of the article so that the lead may repeat information that is in the body. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of the Controversy section as written deserves to be blanked, not because there is not content that may need citing, but because none of the entries are written to describe actual controversies (except the inclusion of the ALEC mission statement, which was more of an "oops"). Wrestling with how to properly organize the article, but avoid WP:OR, since so many of the secondary sources are partisan and therefore unreliable. Thinking a better way is to take the leaked docs (which, unfortunately, are the best source for what the original ALEC model languages were) and match them to actual legislation; that might give a better picture of relevance, ie WHAT ALEC has done. If there IS an "ISSUES" section, then could take, not the prior entries, but the content of the NPR shows or actual issues raised as a pro/con entry.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent indiscriminate repetition of the Lobbying allegations. No doubt that Common Cause has filed an action/request for investigation, but there have been several of these, all rejected, all partisan attacks. That several legitimate (and every non-RS source) news orgs. have reported on the Common Cause allegations do not make them confirmed, and do not make the allegations true or WP:RS. Notable, for now, probably allowable, but is already in the Controversy section. If there are any actual facts that would enhance that, or if people want to add the previous claims, perfectly happy to edit, but just adding the same information to every section verges on spam. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the repetition of the "allegations" is by a host of reliable sources leading with Businessweek. The only rejection of the accusation of lobbying is by ALEC itself, a primary source that does not erase the reliable secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS reporting that Common Cause is making allegations is not the same as making them true. The Source is still ultimately CC.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Stand your ground" law
Goethian's edit should be allowed to stand, indeed expanded, not reverted. I just heard of this group for the first time on a CNN broadcast which credited them for the "Stand your ground" law as well as voter identification laws. It is obvious that we should be able to describe the legislation proposed by a group whose purpose is to propose legislation - indeed, I'd like to see a breakdown of all their efforts. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This column by Krugman might be useful in expanding it.
 * Lobbyists, Guns and Money By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 25, 2012
 * Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged).
 * --Nbauman (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither source says that ALEC had anything to do with the Martin incident. Thus it isn't relevant. – Lionel (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are thrice-wrong. Wrong on the facts source, wrong on policy, and against consensus. ALEC absolutely did have something to do with Martin's (they drafted the law which gave his killer cover), and the source surely does link them, in the headline and in the article body. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you wanna go there? The law is extremely popular in FL (except of course for bussed in lefties) and has resulted in a dramatic drop in crime. When the Martin thing dies down all that will be left in the article is how effective this law is.– Lionel (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then ALEC and its supporters such as yourself should be very proud of this law and its effects as documented by the news media and summarized by my edit. Instead, you go against the facts source, against policy, and against talk page consensus. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But continuing your off-topic political commentary, I'm sure that this incident will be wonderful for Florida's tourism industry. Nothing is more attractive than racist police departments mopping blood off the sidewalks and declining to prosecute murderers. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Breaking news: Zimmerman was attacked. He had a broken nose and a gash on the back of his head. The lone witness stated that Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was the aggressor. The voice on the phone call, screaming for help,  was Zimmerman's , not Martin's. Let me reiterate: the law in FL has resulted in a substantial drop in crime and is very popular. That said, I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: i.e. events are unfolding too quickly to write encyclopedic content. However, if you want to keep Martin in, per WP:DUE we must include sourced police statements that this incident is a proper application of the law, that this was a case of self-defense, that this was justifiable homicide, and that the law is working as intended. – Lionel (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your continued off-topic inanity for now, the cited source explains the (quite obvious) relevance of ALEC to the Martin case. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that Stand-Your-Ground laws have resulted in a drop in crime is "half-true" at best, although even that is charitable. Crime rates were declining for the 5 years before Florida's law was implemented in 2005, and have continued to decline at the same rate since its implementation. The law had no discernible effect on the trajectory of the crime rate. Assigning credit to the law for a decline which started 5 years before its enactment is politically expedient, if not logical, I suppose. One could argue, with just as much validity, that Hurricane Katrina, the White Sox World Series sweep, or any other 2005 event led to a "substantial drop in crime". And of course, sadly and presciently, in 2007 the National District Attorneys Association - hardly a bunch of soft-on-crime bleeding hearts - raised the concern that "Stand Your Ground" laws were likely to lead to deadly force being used in situations which otherwise would not have escalated, and that such laws would have "a disproportionately negative effect on minorities, persons from lower socioeconomic status, and young adults/juveniles." MastCell Talk 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin is leaning toward downplaying the Stand Your Ground/Zimmerman connection. Zimmerman's attorney is not going to use SYG as a defense. It appears the SYG controversy was a manufacture of the media. If we leave Zimmerman in we need to indicate that the connection is a contrivance of the media in Budapest, Romania. – Lionel (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the media erred in connecting SYG with the Martin shooting is not the point, it is now rightly or wrongly the subject of greater public debate as a result. Hence, it is a matter of public interest now that ALEC played a role in the crafting of the legislation.137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This section contains embedded violations of WP:BLP in regard Zimmerman. I don't see any way to redact it to remove the violations, so, if there is no objection, I'll hide this section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Talking Points Memo is not a reliable source. As that provides the only evidence presented that the SYG law is related to ALEC, it must go until a reliable source can be presented.  The fact that the SYG law has nothing to do with either Zimmerman's defense nor the failure to arrest, is not exactly relevant to inclusion, as the media seems to have jumped on it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources linking "Stand Your Ground" laws to ALEC, besides Talking Points Memo. There's the New York Times ("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..."). Separately, the Times describes ALEC as "an influential conservative policy group that came under attack after the Trayvon Martin shooting for pushing Stand Your Ground gun laws nationwide". The relevance is obvious; as the Times articles point out, the outcry over ALEC's advocacy of these laws in the context of the Martin shooting led to an exodus of member corporations from ALEC, and a resulting decision to narrow ALEC's focus. And yes, the "Stand Your Ground" law has everything to do with Zimmerman's defense; see the Associated Press (via FoxNews): "Zimmerman says he killed Martin in self-defense, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives broad legal protection to anyone who says they used deadly force because they feared death or great bodily harm." MastCell Talk 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of re-commenting; I just removed Talking Points Memo entirely, as its connection is not significant. And, as a law student, I should point out that the if Zimmerman broke off pursuit, and was returning to his car, then there is no law, proposed or current, which would mean that he would not be entitled to shoot Martin if Zimmerman was being attacked "with deadly force" and could not, "with substantial certainty", retreat to a place of safety, and had no other alternative than to use deadly force.  The "SYG" law only removes the duty to retreat, which would not have been physically possible.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AP is wrong. Any self-defense statute, including that before the SYG law was passed, would have protected Zimmerman.  It seems to be uninformed "legal" commentators who distinguish between Florida's self-defense statute, and that of other states, when the difference would make no difference.  If Zimmerman were still in pursuit of Martin, it would have made a difference, but there is no claim being made that that was the case.  I suspect bias by the news media.
 * However, whether they are wrong or not, it's still reported, and the fact that the SYG has nothing to do with Zimmerman is irrelevant to whether it should be included in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that Talking Points Memo is unreliable is based on what? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a partisan website, albeit a relatively respectable one. I'm not going to say it's categorically verboten as a source, but we should definitely try to find better sources when possible. MastCell Talk 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If "Stand your Ground" is being cited as a "Controversy", then a definition of WHAT the controversy IS is needed. Obviously, the law was extensively and openly debated (no controversy), isn't new (no controversy), was passed by near unanimous (no controversy), BIPARTISAN (no controversy) majorities, and is OVERWHELMINGLY popular in Florida (no controversy). It has been on the books for 7 years. The fact that it has been in the news, and being re-examined by the national press is fine to include, but you also have to include what it is NOT, namely controversial in the usual sense. If you say there is a "Controversy", then you have to say what that controversy IS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ALEC did not create Stand Your Ground legislation. It took the Florida bill as enacted as a model to share for other states. The article suggested the opposite. I have corrected that and inserted a ref from UC-Irvine. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also could have added Wash Post and WSJ refs, but why be redundant? One question; since when did Talking Points Memo become RS on anything?Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cap; absolutely correct, Florida introduced, debated, passed the immensely popular and bipartisan Stand Your Ground and THEN ALEC took up the issue to analyze legislative wording for other States and legislators. HOWEVER, while true, the press reported it (incorrectly) as the other way around after the Martin shooting. Perhaps the misreporting, THEN the correct chronology needs to be included. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Narrative ; delete or replace lists, and if so, with what?
Obviously, the article on an organization needs a section on what it is, how it is organized, and KEY people, and possibly KEY former members, and that needs to be near the top. Instead, we have the bulky and distracting tables, and little NPOV narrative. Also a problem, as the tables and the List of Members of the ALEC have been initiated in the middle of various online attack campaigns (one of which is above) trying to "target" people. Tried the compromise of using a collapse template, but have no objection to simply deleting the less important tables. Need a section within the Organization section on the various Task forces, and what they do, plus a narrative on how deliberation takes place within the organization. I would reduce the Board section to present board executives and a few former Chairmen, if notable. Private enterprise Board and State chairs need to be mentioned and where these groups weigh in on the process of making model legislation, but little more. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The creation of a new section to discuss this topic, which I raised in the immediately preceding one, coming after very similar behaviour previously on this talk page, strikes me as disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point viz. that 209.x is not going to accept anyone else's talk page headings, or at least mine. I'd appreciate it very much if editors would discuss this topic in the section where I raised it, just above, to avoid rewarding this behaviour. Thanks, all. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Point of order : When I made the preceding comment, the title/header of this section was still the following 16 words, verbatim:  "Long Tables, lists of names, instead of narrative ; delete or replace, and if so, with what?"  which was the name IP 209.x gave it when he created it. --Ohiostandard 21:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the redundant header inserted by IP 209. The behavior of 209 appears to be that of ignoring as much of your input as possible. Reprehensible and non-collaborative. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Our IP 209.x friend twice deleted Binksternet's preceding comment and, in those same two edits, twice restored the section header in its original wording. Then at IP 209.x changed the section title to "Narrative ; delete or replace lists, and if so, with what?" Finally, he restored Binksternet's preceding comment of 17:47, 25 May. I object to his behavior, of course, but I asked him a few days ago not to change section names he's chosen after others have posted to them, and he gave me no substantive reply then. And since he's now deleted from his talk two separate requests I made today to moderate his behavior, again without reply, I'm not going to ask him on his talk to restore the original section heading. He'd obviously just delete the request. --Ohiostandard 21:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur and Lionel; have done the edits, page looks much better. I think through edit summaries we all agree the big bulky tables are a nuisance, and since the info is being listified, any argument that it still needs to dominate the article have disappeared. If we are agreed that the compromise of collapsing does not work and the List is where this article is going to put the information, it is probably a good idea to monitor that page for WP:COATRACK. The organization section probably still needs a narrative about each of the Board's role in the drafting of model legislation or identifying issues that need the attention of the Task Forces. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Arthur; with regards to the List;

I'm not sure I agree that the List can ever be the "Main article: List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council". Lists are supposed to be just that, supplemental information that does not fit well into an article. The narrative is supposed to be the "Main". Not opposed to moving it to the end of the Organization section, as supplemental info.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Another editor has pointed out that though ALEC has a Chair for every State to have a Rep for their State, two chairs are Vacant. Had to check, but turns out, is true. Position still exists, and the State Chairs are polled for applicability of Legislative language. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, 209. Just thought I'd ask you in a cheerful, chummy way if you have any explanation for your deletion of comments and requests from the talk page mentioned above? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP is NOT for censorship: 800 model bills
Our ubiquitous IP 209.x friend wants a "single entry", as he puts it, to document the publication of over 800 leaked pieces of model legislation produced by ALEC over a thirty-year period. To allow that would not be far from censorship, in my opinion. Our readers absolutely have the right to know what was in those model bills, and our own rules certainly permit that, when cited to reliable sources, as is the case with the content he deleted.

His specific objection is to the use of ten bullet points to call out content that was previously in the article, unbulleted, to describe the topic areas covered by those 800+ model bills. He deleted that entirely. But that's just one bullet point for every 80+ model bills. No one can tell me with a straight face that they think that's excessive; it would be ridiculous.

If IP 209.x still objects to the disclosure of the nature of those model bills, then I'd observe that its actually the refs he's objecting to, not the content. I say so, because there's no legitimate basis for an objection to the content itself. ALEC is about creating model bills; we certainly need to tell our readers what they comprise. If he has counterbalancing refs from reliable sources that specifically state that ALECs model bills in those areas are wholly in the public (rather than private) interest, he's free to add them to whichever bullet point they specifically apply to. – OhioStandard  (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, because the material is "leaked", and hence its provenance is uncertain, we cannnot quote it. We can only quote what reliable sources say about it.  I suspect 10 is about all we can get.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about quoting from the primary sources, although I'll say, in passing, that I doubt RSN would agree with your assessment. But this is the section in question, before IP 209.x deleted the bulleted content:



On July 13, 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy in cooperation with The Nation published more than 800 pieces of ALEC's model legislation created over a 30-year period, brought to them from a source inside ALEC, by Aliya Rahmanan, one of the organizers of the 2011 Cincinnati protest against group. The Center for Media and Democracy created a new web project named ALEC Exposed to host these model bills, which had never before been available to the public. It also created dozens of tools to enable citizens to track ALEC politicians, ALEC corporations, and ALEC bills moving in their states.

Simultaneously, The Nation issued a special edition of its magazine devoted to breaking the story. It featured articles on ALEC's model bills and analysis of the group's:


 * Attempts to influence election legislation toward enacting more restrictive voter ID laws and allowing unlimited corporate contributions;
 * Efforts to restrict states' revenue collection via taxes and fees,


 * Attempts to encourage privatization of public services,


 * Efforts to and oppose unionization and the influence of unions;


 * Efforts to influence healthcare legislation in a direction favored by corporate and insurance company interests,


 * Attempts to promote various forms of privatization for public schools.


 * Connection to the political activities of the Koch family


 * Efforts in favor of the privatization of prisons, longer prison sentences, more punitive sentencing guidelines,


 * Efforts toward the relaxation of the rules concerning the use of inmate labor by private industry.

One of the journalists writing in The Nation, Mike Elk, subsequently appeared on Democracy Now! to discuss efforts by ALEC and the private prison industry to bring about these changes.

On July 14, 2011, the Los Angeles Times announced that government watchdog Common Cause would issue a challenge to ALEC's nonprofit status, on the grounds that ALEC "spends most of its resources lobbying, in violation of the rules governing nonprofit organizations."


 * References

As I said, ALEC is about model bills: Our readers have the right expect that an article about ALEC will present information about those bills. – OhioStandard  (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I always find it amusing that some people communicate so aggressively behind the relative anonymity of the web when they wouldn't do so in real life. My excitable IP friend's comments below have conflated the issue of the protests with the release of the 800+ documents, for reasons best known to himself. He might like to observe that I posted about the two matters in two separate sections. If anyone else would like to comment specifically about my view that one bullet point for every 80+ documents is hardly excessive, I'd be pleased to hear that. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical

 * Dear Ohio. WP is NOT a noticeboard or a column ("Our readers"? there is a problem if you regard WP as a place for YOUR readers), but an encyclopedia. You have made no logical argument for inclusion of the table of contents of a magazine issue. The average legal filing has a boxful (lets say a thousand) documents in it. If the filing is notable, it is notable on merits, not volume of paper. The leak is the leak, a singular event (and am already giving wide latitude; it isn't TECHNICALLY a controversy, either), most notable in that it provides a RESOURCE hitherto unavailable. Good. A Singular event, a single magazine issue, notable, but not to be reproduced on WP, but summarized. If you now want to USE this resource to expand the History of ALEC, fine. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Our IP 209.x friend has just now prefaced his preceding remarks with a new heading in apparent retaliation for my having restored the section heading I chose in my original talk page post on this topic, after he twice refused to do so. Just for the record, I'm going to record the heading he placed here, immediately above his preceding comment of 15:32, 4 May 2012 UTC, since he likes to change headings, both his own and others', after they've been created. It's this: "The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical".


 * I'm tempted not to reply to this particular instance of hyperbole on his part, but I will just say that what is actually "nonsensical" is his attempt to exclude all mention of the content of the model bills generated by ALEC, when generating model bills is, in fact, it's reason for existence and its principal activity. I haven't the least doubt that editors with no POV stake in this article will agree with me on that point. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ummm.... You do know what EDITING is
There were about 100 "mostly uninformed" protesters; does that mean it is ridiculous not to have at least 10 bullet points in the soon-to-be-deleted (unless SOMEONE can make a case for NOTABILITY; I'm being really patient), which is only 1 per 10 people?? There is a single CONTROVERSY, so a single topic. You have just said in the rambling previous paragraphs that EVERY document that is leaked is a NEW CONTROVERSY. As suggested above, if the article needs examples of where ALEC model legislation has aided the real legislative process, that's appropriate. It just isn't a CONTROVERSY. Eliminating the irrelevant, sorting into proper categories, making the article read well and appropriately are all called EDITING. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've told IP 209.x many times now, there's a section in our notability guideline that's entitled, "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". He should read it. He should also stop changing section header titles, should comply with talk page indentation norms, should lose the straw-man hyperbole, and should stop making personally disparaging remarks e.g. about what he's pleased to call my "rambling and nonsensical" comments on this page. Overall, he needs to just drop the inappropriately aggressive posture he's brought to his participation here. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lobbying"
11 May 2012 I added what I thought was a very temperate, uncontroversial, obvious, (if not particularly flattering to ALEC) sentence to the lede here

"Recently a dispute has arisen as to whether ALEC is a charitable educational organization as it insists, or what one newspaper article called a 'stealth business lobbyist' and as advocacy groups have maintained."

References

and it has since been deleted here here and here by some beltway person with an IP address of 209.6.69.227

The complaint against having this information in the lede according to IP 209.x appears to be that "Common Cause is the source of the allegation, NOT WP:RS. News reporting ON the Common Cause allegation does not mean it is confirmed by RS, Allegation already in Article,"

This is simply not true. There are some quotes from articles on the issue:


 * New York Times. Article title: "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist."  From text: "....The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes....."  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/us/alec-a-tax-exempt-group-mixes-legislators-and-lobbyists.html


 * Businessweek Bloomberg. Article title: "ALEC's Secrets Revealed; Corporations Flee." From text: ".... ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because it’s done its work behind closed doors. Membership lists were secret. The origins of the model bills were secret. Part of ALEC’s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work. If this were to become clear to everyone, there’d be no reason for corporations to use it. ..." http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/alecs-secrets-revealed-corporations-flee

This is not Common Cause or People for the American Way, these are major media publications and they are NOT just reporting Common Causes allegations. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Times article on the Common Cause allegations "'The documents — hundreds of pages of minutes of private meetings, member e-mail alerts and correspondence — were obtained by the watchdog group Common Cause and shared with The New York Times. 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.'" That is basically what the article is about, namely, Common Cause's recent allegations. Already in the Controversy section, not a separate issue.

Bloomberg article; mentions the Common Cause allegations, does not even focus on Lobbying. Here are ALL the references to Lobbying in the entire article "But no 'lobbying' will take place. " "ALEC is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit that provides a public service, not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence." "Common Cause sent a tax whistleblower complaint to the IRS, claiming ALEC is a lobbying group" "and therefore is not a lobbying group." "ALEC does not lobby" That's IT. The idea that you can take away from the Bloomberg piece that Bloomberg is alleging ALEC is Lobbying, or that the New York Times, which is solely reporting on the Common Cause allegation is "proving" or even making allegations in their own voice casts doubt on whether you read or care what you read in the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The New York Times called ALEC a "stealth business lobbyist". Bloomberg's article is titled "Republican Group Subject of IRS Complaint on Lobbying". Recently, Mother Jones called ALEC "a secretive nonprofit that brings together Republican state legislators and corporations to write and promote pro-business legislation" that "has quietly, and by name, been specifically exempted from rules for lobbyists" in three states, meaning that they are lobbying but for free. In 2002, Karen Olsson wrote in the widely cited article in Mother Jones, "Ghostwriting the Law", that ALEC is "a little-known corporate lobby". Olsson is widely quoted for this sentence, "ALEC might better be described as one of the nation's most powerful—and least known—corporate lobbies". In 1996, Mother Jones said ALEC was "a group that provides lobbying support for MSAs". The Daily Kos showed that ALEC is tied to Arizona lobbyists who report their fees. The Hill casually put ALEC in the "world of political lobbying". Huffington Post wrote "The American Legislative Exchange Council, the controversial corporate-sponsored lobbying group..." Right Wing Watch / People for the American Way described ALEC thus: "ALEC serves as a means for corporations to advise, lobby and sway legislators." In 1995, the state of Minnesota gave their legal opinion that ALEC was a lobbying group. Author Deanna Gelak lists ALEC as a lobbyist resource. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues says that "for-profit prison corporations [are] lobbying and writing laws via the Criminal Justice Task Force committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council" on page 602. ALEC is called "a powerful lobby for prison privatization" in Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration. In 21st Century Revolution, Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall calls ALEC a "corporate lobby group". Douglas Long in Ecoterrorism calls ALEC "an influential conservative Washington, DC, lobby group." Byron Eugene Price says ALEC is the reason critics fear a "prison lobby" pushing laws to put more people in prison and to privatize prisons. Let's hear from Tamara Piety, the Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa: "The granddaddy of all lobbying efforts is perhaps represented by ALEC". Michael Yates (economist) called ALEC a "corporate lobbying group". I am certain we are on solid ground calling ALEC a lobbyist group despite ALEC's denial of same. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy-based answer is obvious: we state facts, including facts about opinions. For example: "ALEC has been described as a lobbying organization by independent sources such as the New York Times etc etc, although ALEC itself denies that it engages in lobbying." Simple, right? We attribute the (well-sourced) viewpoints that ALEC is, and is not, a lobbying organization. Neither is presented as "fact"; both are presented as attributed opinion. MastCell Talk 16:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But what about the category lobbyist? That has to be in black & white. I am arguing for the category. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My default stance on categories is that if there is any nuance or dispute involved, it's better not to use the category. In the article body, we can explain that ALEC denies lobbying but independent sources view them as lobbyists. But a category is, as you say, black and white. When we use it, we can't cross-reference ALEC's denial (however implausible). So I would actually recommend not including the "lobbying" category, but I think the issue should be clearly outlined in the article body, where we can present nuance, attribution, citations, etc. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to see we have a quorum here. I agree we'd be on eminently solid ground to describe them as a lobbying group, in WP's voice, Binksternet: Thanks for the great refs, btw. Still, Wikipedia, like politics, is "the art of the possible", and I see no objection to MastCell's "RS say it is, ALEC says it's not" formula, either. That's certainly more likely to remain stable in the article over the long term, as there would be no defensible or plausible reason for deleting or minimising it. I do have to agree with MastCell about the category, though. It's likewise my opinion that the consensus for inclusion of any given article in a category should be nearly universal, or it shouldn't be added. In any case, I think we're agreed that BoogaLouie's addition to the lead belongs there, as a summary of the "lobbying" section, which should be expanded per MastCell's formula, using Binksternet's sources.


 * Does it trouble anyone else, btw, that although ALEC's primary work is in producing model bills, our article says almost nothing substantive as to what those model bills have been about? That's been expunged almost entirely, with a mild assist from one named account, by our ubiquitous IP friend, who claims it's "propaganda" to describe them or the topics they cover, based on RS reports. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had intended to do something about the astounding lack of discussion of model bills that have been notable, but instead I got caught up in adding some details regarding the early history of the group. I'm not promising to add paragraphs of model bills that have excited comment in the national press, but I think such paragraphs should be prominent in the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bravo.
 * Mastcell or Ohiostandard or Binksternet: any comment on the sentence in contention at the beginning of the section? --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, we're certainly agreed that your addition to the lead belongs there, as a summary of the "lobbying" section, which should be expanded per MastCell's formula, using Binksternet's sources. I actually think your proposed addition to the lead should be expanded, that we should considerably expand what RS say about ALEC's purpose, in the lead, using e.g. the NYT statement you quoted, viz. only one facet of a sophisticated operation for shaping public policy.


 * Such an expansion is certainly needed as a counter to the "we like kittens, puppies, and walks on the beach" and ""government closest to the people" pap by which ALEC attempts to deceive the public, and that's currently quoted in the lead. I'll break out my question re what Binkersternet rightly describes as "the astounding lack of discussion of model bills" to subsequent thread, btw, to avoid derailing or hijacking this one with that topic. --OhioStandard (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to allegations of IP 209.x
Regarding the statement above by IP 209.x: 

New York Times article on the Common Cause allegations "'The documents — hundreds of pages of minutes of private meetings, member e-mail alerts and correspondence — were obtained by the watchdog group Common Cause and shared with The New York Times. 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.'"
 * That is basically what the article is about, namely, Common Cause's recent allegations. Already in the Controversy section, not a separate issue.

This is HIGHLY misleading. It is not until the 7th paragraph of the NY Times article that Common Cause is mentioned. Before that, the article talks about ALEC's trying to stop an Ohio bill that that would make it easier to recover money from businesses that defraud the state, and then the NYT article refers to Common Causes documents thusly :


 * ... But a review of internal ALEC documents shows that this is only one facet of a sophisticated operation for shaping public policy at a state-by-state level. The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes.

Note the article does NOT say "Common Cause contends that" special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists etc., the AUTHORS say this!

As for what IP 209.x has to say about the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article:


 * Bloomberg article; mentions the Common Cause allegations, does not even focus on Lobbying. Here are ALL the references to Lobbying in the entire article [he then gives four sentences with the word "lobby" or "lobbying" in them, the first being]
 * "But no 'lobbying' will take place."

Let's look at the full paragraph of the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article in which the sentence "But no 'lobbying' will take place." actually appears: 
 * On May 11, 2012, about 20 state legislators from 15 oil- and gas-rich states are scheduled to meet in a hotel conference room in Charlotte. Representatives from major energy companies will be there, too. Oil and gas lobbying groups will give presentations to the lawmakers on fossil fuel prices and the need for modernizing the nation’s power grid. But no “lobbying” will take place. What happens in Charlotte will be called education.

This is not about Lobbying??? I put it to you the the claim that IP 209.x made, in saying:
 * The idea that you can take away from the Bloomberg piece that Bloomberg is alleging ALEC is Lobbying, or that the New York Times, which is solely reporting on the Common Cause allegation is "proving" or even making allegations in their own voice casts doubt on whether you read or care what you read in the articles.

... is a gamble that readers won't bother to check the articles themselves and see that he is ... there is no basis to his claims. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Neither the NYT article or the Bloomberg "article" actually says that ALEC is lobbying as defined in law; as both articles point out, one person's "education" is another person's "lobbying". (Going off to some original research; there is no difference between informing legislators of the consequences of bills and lobbying for or against those bills.  None whatsoever.  This makes Category:Lobbying too vague to include any organization which does not state it is lobbying, but that's the way it is.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You and comrade IP 209.x are grasping at straws. The articles do not say "ALEC is lobbying as defined in law", they describe how ALEC lobbies while avoiding (or trying to avoid) being called lobbyists. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The article have a plain meaning, and how you come to your varying interpretations escapes me. The assertion that the article states "special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists" makes no sense. Lawmakers are lobbying THEMSELVES?!?!?. The recent allegations of lobbying by Common Cause have been put into the Controversy section, even though it is arguable whether that is undue emphasis. It is a charge that has been made several times, making it a bit of a yawn. Not too hard to find about a dozen time some partisan group has leveled a charge of lobbying that made it into some media article. As with most mud, it takes a bit of searching primary sources to find what happened to all previous claims that actually required the group making the charge to back it up. Made and thrown out as frivolous several times. If you want to list previous allegations, be my guest, but posting and reposting and conflating this all over Wikipedia, without adding any actual detail is NOT improving any article.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please give it a rest. You are wasting everyone's time trying to mislead editors and the public. The special interests give ALEC’s lawmaker members talking points, model legislation, etc. and they in turn lobby their fellow laymakers. It does not matter whether some intern at a rightwing interest group thinks it "makes sense". The New York Times and Businessweek are WP:RS. You most definately are not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're absolutely wrong. Legislators cannot "lobby" other legislators (in the same house, anyway).  It's logically impossible.
 * The anon is correct; what ALEC is doing is educating their member legislators, who in turn argue with other legislators. Both the NYT and Bloomberg say that what ALEC is doing is not lobbying, but is functionally equivalent.  Common Cause says that ALEC is lobbying, but we don't know what it is basing its assertion on.  If you want to redefine lobbying as including actions which serve the same purpose (which includes education, what Common Cause is doing, and asking members of your organization to write to legislators), go ahead.  Just don't put it in the "mouth" of Wikipedia or of reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "anon"? You make it sound like you just stumbled across him (IP 209.x) and find him compelling. You have been arguing on the same side as IP 209.x for a couple of weeks now. Assuming you are two different people I'll repeat what I said. A WP:RS has stated,
 * "The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists"
 * You, Arthur Rubin may declare that when a lawmaker lobbys another lawmaker it's not lobbying, its education, but sorry, Arthur Rubin is not a WP:RS. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arthur, but it's you who are "absolutely wrong". Lobbyists are called "lobbyists" because they used to have to hang out in lobbies hoping to chat up a lawmaker as he passed through on the way to a committee meeting or something. Now that the lobbyists and lawmakers have a sekrit club together, and go to hotels for the week-end, perhaps we should more properly call them "bedfellows", but "lobbyists" is the only word in current use. An argument that what goes on at those hotels isn't lobbying, merely because the lobbyists now have the lawmakers coming to them, instead, often at their expense, is just not plausible.


 * And yes, as BoogaLouie observes, the New York Times trumps your opinion on this, as do the multiplicity of RS that describe ALEC as lobbying. If you don't like it, write a letter to their editors. Until you get a retraction from the lot of them, we write our articles based on what RS have to say. I'll not be discussing this point further; I think we're approaching RFC/U territory for our IP friend, at least. His goal seems to be to expunge all negative information from this article, regardless of how well sourced. That attempt violates multiple policies, of course, and will not be allowed to continue indefinitely. --OhioStandard (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Boog and OS; you do not seem to have a grasp on what Lobbying means. You are making up definitions, and they do not fit what it is. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We go by reliable sources, not shooting from the hip. If reliable sources say the group is lobbying then we tell the reader which sources say so. If the source says lobbying without reservation, without attribution, then we add them to the pile on. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do. The NYT specifically said is was not lobbying.  Bloomberg only said it was not lobbying in a sarcastic way, but they don't really say it is lobbying.  Got any other sources?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Arthur needs to tell us where, exactly, the New York Times "specifically said is [it?] was not lobbying", referring to ALEC. If he's referring to their article Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist, I'd be especially interested to see a supporting quotation, as I just re-read that, and I found no such assertion made by the paper. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I read the NYT article as Rubin does, but regardless this accusation from an opposition group should be in the body of the article not the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors need to drop the refrain that this is an "accusation from an opposition group", that's well into "I didn't hear that" territory, given what's been posted above on this talk page. And like Arthur, our Capital friend needs to explain exactly where in Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist the New York Times says ALEC isn't a lobbying group. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Major difference between ACCUSATIONS, which are always of dubious notability (anyone can make accusations about just about anything), and actual decisions, which, as you obliquely refer to, have taken place. Your Google search dump above proves that MANY liberal activist groups have made accusations, going back to the 1980s, and yet ALEC retains its 501(c)3 because they have all turned out to be frivolous. Any substantive decision, no 501, but as we see, they ARE a 501. A decision is a fact, an accusation is not. A decision may be notable, but since they all just confirm what ALEC was in the first place, only notable in the sense that it has been subject to frivolous attacks for some time. Allegations, though, are NOT usually notable. None of the proponents of adding the Common Cause allegations have been able to say what they are or why they are different from the previous dozen that have been thrown out. Until they do, I don't see why they are in the article at all, but am being patient. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of our sources casually say that ALEC is a lobbying group, without any trace of accusation. Nice try, though. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try yourself. These articles are reporting on the accusations, and to some extent merely thinly re-written versions of Common Cause' accusations. These are controversial accusations that either will be upheld or dismissed in court. Either way it belongs in the body of the article, not the lede.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Several other points; the NYT article's headline is not dispositive. The article is a lot less sexy and careful about accusations of lobbying. This is not a surprise because headlines are not written by the authors of the stories and are often disconnected from the articles' content. Additionally I see only two RS anywhere on point. Bloomberg and NYT. Neither matches your characterization as casually saying ALEC is a lobbying group. Are you referring to some other sources?Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Second request: "And like Arthur, our Capital friend needs to explain exactly where in Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist the New York Times says ALEC isn't a lobbying group." --OhioStandard (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now read the NYT article for the 4th time. I have printed it out and gone through it with a highlighter. The only person in the article who says what they are doing is lobbying is the Common Cause spokesman. In the very next paragragh ALEC vigorously disputes the characterization. NYT does not say that the organization is a lobbying organization. However, I may be wrong. I may have missed it. Please show me the quote that you think show that NYT says they are a lobbying organization. I can be convinced, because I have been wrong in the past. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist." Do you dispute that the "Conservative Nonprofit" in question is ALEC?  Are you arguing that "acting" as a lobbyist is not the same as lobbying??? What I find a bit suspicious and cunningly lawyerly-like is that for all the time and band width you three are spending on this, you haven't made yourselves clear; as though you're being careful not to explain what you mean because you know it wouldn't make any sense. You just keep repeating "they don't say ALEC is a lobbying organization."  Is the idea to create a mass of talk page verbage so that some harried admin will throw up their hands and say "I can't read all this! they just don't agree!" ?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it too late for me to chime in? It does appear that Common Cause is driving the coverage. I'm hesitent to use WP's voice when it is really Common Cause calling the shots. – Lionel (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Common Cause and the other usual suspects. Many outside calls to vandalize Wikipedia, as well, much like this one []; much partisan advocacy to promote and disseminate info not on ALEC, with NPOV, but on people's pet boycott projects.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Point of order : I've asked 209.x on his talk page not to post at left margin by default (and) to comply with WP:INDENT. --Ohiostandard 10:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (To BoogaLouie); Titles are not considered reliable. (In some cases, in technical papers where the title was written by the authors of the article, they might be....but, as an occasional reviewer of peer-reviewed articles, the choice of title is not part of the review process.)  They are assigned by editors who have no interest in accuracy; the primary interest is in increasing circulation, and the secondary interest is in not being sued.  The articles, themselves, are often considered reliable, but titles (and probably subtitles) are not.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see others have noted this before me. Nonetheless, it's a Wikipedia guideline that titles are not reliable sources for anything.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First off why did it take you so long to make this case? Second, it's customary to provide a link to the evidence when you make a claim like this. Titles are not considered reliable ... sez who? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious to anyone who has ever worked in the news industry. Article titles and subtitles are assigned by the front office, without much regard to the content of the articles.  The article does not state or imply that ALEC is lobbying, and the article is what we use.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick scan doesn't find anything WP:RSN since 2008, but it was clear then that CNN article titles are not reliable. And it took me this long to reply because I read the articles, disregarding titles and subtitles, and found nothing to support the statement that ALEC is engaged in lobbying.  I had hoped that you had another source, but you're just misreading the existing sources.
 * Now, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to assert that Common Cause is "driving the coverage", just on the (few) lobbying allegations which have not (yet) been discredited. The 209 anon is correct in asserting that there have been previous challenges to ALEC's 501(c)3 status, which have been found to be, well, unfounded.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional public radio source
Hi, all. I arrived at this page after I heard a 19 April 2012 program on public radio about ALEC, and then became curious to learn more. The program was very informative and also seemed reasonably well-balanced re POV: The producers asked ALEC for an offical representative to appear on the program, the organization declined, so the producers found someone willing to speak very persuasively in its favour, anyway. It's 50 minutes long.

I may or may not stop back in to add content based on the program at some point, but this isn't really my bailiwick, and I'd be just as pleased if anyone else were to go ahead and do so. The well-formed citation below can be copypasted into the article by anyone who wants to add content based on it. I should note, however, that the URL and LAYSUMMARY fields will likely change almost immediately, when the target rolls off to the producer's archive pages. Search for the program here when the link breaks for that reason.

The KCRW description page for the program includes a brief text description that I linked to via the LAYSUMMARY field for the cite. It's not really a lay summary, as much as it is the only (written) summary, but the field seemed reasonable to use for that purpose, since theres no other text description. That description, says, in part: " Florida and 24 other states have adopted 'Stand Your Ground' laws thanks to a shadowy organization of state legislators and lobbyists . We hear the pros and cons of the group called ALEC." (emphasis added) That same page also currently displays an image ( unfortunately non-free, from Getty Images, although a fair-use rationale might be attempted by those who know about such things ) of a group or crowd holding up "We are Trayvon Martin" signs in a protest rally outside ALEC's headquarters. Accompanying image description here, in hidden text.

The program could be usefully cited in this article's section about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which could use more sources. There was a fair bit of discussion in the program about how that law became so ubiquitous throughout the states. ALEC is said, in the program, to have been a motive force behind that proliferation.

I'll also note that the story explicitly states that 104 (iirc) of the 105 (iirc) people who hold governance or leadership roles in the organization are Republicans, and that few of its members are Democrats. A comparison is also made to a different group, a publicly funded organization whose name I do not now recall, which also facilitates collaboration among state legislative members, but mostly on best practices for procedural/infrastructure matters. In that organization, the program said, leadership positions alternate between the two political parties every other year. The very strong implication, iirc, seemed to be that that organization was transparent and democratic - note small "d" - by comparison to ALEC.

The program also addresses ALEC's efforts at changing voter registration laws, and includes a fair bit of discussion about how those efforts disproportionately exclude minorities from voting. Besides the host, Warren Olney, the show includes a member of ALEC (speaking unofficially), a woman who runs the "ALEC EXPOSED" website at alecexposed.com, and an African-American man who has successfully asked a number of corporations - seven, as I recall - that have both supported ALEC and made significant PR overtures to African-Americans, to ask those corporations to quit ALEC because of its efforts, as he sees it, to disenfranchise minority voters.

Oh; the program also talks about ALECs and (iirc) Corrections Corporation of America's (CCA) push to privatise prisons in the United States, and the model legislation they jointly authored that would ensure that contracts with CCA prisons would have an "occupancy rate" no lower than 95%. I'd have to listen to the program again to be sure I have those details exactly right, however, although I am confident in the 95% minimum occupancy number, at least.

In all, the program appears to offer a pretty rich resource for this article: An almost hour-long reliable-source discussion about the organization. My only cavil is that there doesn't seem to be a transcript of the program available, only the audio recording via streaming, podcast, or mp3 download. Here's some otherwise meaningless text to provide an end-of-post home for the cite.

Find a transcript. Then note if the material is fact or is opinion. Opinions, at best, must be so ascribed to the person holding them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Leadership structure tables restored
Hi, all. I've effectively reverted this edit by making this one. Arthur Rubin evidently thought the tables showing the organisation's leadership were too much, and collapsed them. Lionelt objected, saying doing so was a violation of Manual of Style dictates, and suggested that Arthur should just delete them if he didn't like them. Arthur did so. I think that loses a lot of valuable content, so I restored them, but moved them to the end of the page, to try to address the apparent readability concerns that previous edit summaries and Arthur's previous collapse seem to imply. Again, I think the content is valuable, and it's certainly on-topic. Obviously Arthur, and presumably Lionelt approve of its deletion. So if they want to push its deletion, what do others think? Is it useful and appropriate to include, or not? --OhioStandard (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Point of order : He obviously won't accede himself, but can we please have the discussion about the leadership tables here, to avoid rewarding IP 209.x's disruptive behaviour? He played games previously on this talk page with headings, and since he didn't get his way he's evidently decided to create a new section (see immediately subsequent one, with long title ) every time he wants to respond to a point I've raised on this talk page. Coming after he just removed my politely worded request from his talk, without comment, asking that he comply with WP:INDENT rather than always posting at flush left, as he did in the preceding section, I think he'd do well to read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'd be grateful, thanks. --OhioStandard (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)     Re strikethrough, IP 209.x  the subsequent section's title/header at 19:07, 25 May, 2012. -- OS 


 * Move the tables to List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, and summarize. The list of present members and/or supporters is either an arbitrary selection (if not complete) or just too much for this article, and should be in the subarticle (if complete).  Some information (in prose, rather than in tables, and with sources) about the leadership and/or notable supporters should be present in this article, but the lists are just undue WP:WEIGHT.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Point of order : At IP 209.x just removed the tables under discussion here, in apparent contravention of wp:brd. This seems to me to be an attempt to avoid giving WP:Consensus time to form on this issue, and to attempt to game the system to push his preferred outcome by presenting fellow editors with a fait accompli while discussion is ongoing. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just want to thank you, Arthur, for the respect you evidence by posting here. On the substance, can I ask: Do you not think this is helpful and relevant information? I agree it's a a fair bit to wade through at the top of the article, but a table seems to me the most easily accessible way to ... well, "access" or view the information quickly and easily.


 * Presenting it as narrative text, as you suggest, would seem to me to "bury" the data. To mention just one problem with doing so, it would obscure the fact that this is an almost entirely Republican organisation, at least in its leadership. Surely it provides valuable information to our readers to see that in black and white, apart from the simple data each row contains.


 * Also, re your "notable supporters" comment, I'd just mention that Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Notability applies to the topic articles are written about, not to the various facts presented within them. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The section as Ohiostandard has posted it is large but not "just too much for this article". I agree that burying the data is not good. and that its good to show how much of the organization is Republican rather than just state it is predominantly so. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To put it simply the tables are WP:UNDUE. The entries in these tables have little or no independent coverage individually in relation to ALEC. OhioStandard: if you want to jam your own POV into the article that the org is run by Republicans, just do it the old fashioned way, find a far left wing source and cite it. LOL! – Lionel (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Lionel. Our policy on due weight applies to the weight given to debatable "viewpoints" and "beliefs" about a topic, not to the presentation of very simple, objective data about it. By no stretch of the imagination is it "POV" to provide objective facts about an organisation's leadership that our readers will find useful in an article about it. The entries in these tables don't need "independent coverage individually in relation to ALEC", as you put it: Again, please see WP:NOTE for the section entitled notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's more like WP:COATRACK, and the only source for the material is ALEC, itself, so an entry would be a WP:BLP violation if contentious. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how all of these tables add to the reader's understanding of the topic. If the only reason for them is to attempt to prove some vast right wing conspiracy there are easier ways to do that. Ohiostandard: why not add some add some bullshit from some biased far left wing hack at say, Media Matters. There is no better source for pushing POV. Until then there is obviously no consensus for including these tables.– Lionel (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that Lionelt doesn't see how these tables add to the reader's understanding, but other editors do see that. And with all due thanks for his very pleasant and no doubt expert advice about POV pushing, he's fundamentally confused: Per our BRD norm we don't need consensus for including the tables, consensus is needed for excluding them: The tables had been in the article for going on two months when Arthur boldly deleted them, and I reverted his deletion. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand this discussion. ALEC's membership includes conservative legislators, virtually all of them Republicans. That's a verifiable fact, and it's not really helpful to pretend that reality is some sort of far-left POV. I assume that BusinessWeek isn't a "biased far left wing hack" publication; see: "Republican Group Subject of IRS Complaint on Lobbying". The "Republican group" in question is, of course, ALEC. See the New York Times: "The legislation was reworked to ease some of ALEC’s concerns, making it one of many bills the group has influenced by mobilizing its lawmaker members, a vast majority of them Republicans." I'm on the fence about whether a complete table of leadership is essential, but let's keep the discussion at least somewhat grounded in reality and reliable sources. MastCell Talk 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And its membership also includes Democrats. Which makes it not simply a one-party organization.  This is a matter of Wikipedia trying to use facts and not polemics.    Postulate the Gnarphist society as having 80%  Gleen members and 20% Gled members - that does not allow Wikipedia to assert the GS is "Gleen" does it?   BTW, "virtually all" is not sourced - and asserting that you know it to be a "fact" does not make it one.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have completely ignored the sources I presented, in an effort to pretend that I'm expressing a personal opinion. If reliable sources describe the Gnarphist society as a "Gleen group", then Wikipedia can and should describe it as such. That's extremely basic site policy. I provided direct quotes from reliable sources, so there's no need to pretend I'm expressing a personal opinion - you can dispense with that line and actually grapple with the sources. "Vast majority" is a direct quote from a reliable source. I believe that "virtually all" is semantically equivalent; if you disagree, then I'm fine with using "vast majority" instead. Beyond that, you're arguing against things I haven't actually said. I don't think anyone has argued that ALEC's membership is 100% Republican, but I'm sensing a very odd and irrational resistance to conveying the well-sourced fact that ALEC is predominantly a Republican organization. MastCell Talk 16:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, cast aspersions on the other editor? Not gonna fly.  My position on labelling groups or people is clear, and applies across the board.  We can say a person or group categorises someone or some group (opinion), but I consistenly have opposed stating such as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.  Left, right, center, gleen or gled.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; since reliable sources indicate that a vast majority of ALEC's legislators are Republican, which is a matter of fact and not opinion, I will add that to the article in Wikipedia's voice. Since BusinessWeek characterizes ALEC as a "Republican group", which is arguably a matter of opinion (or at least interpretation of facts), I will add that reliably sourced material to the article with in-text attribution to BusinessWeek. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you have is that a majority of (putative) members as listed by Sourcewatch - as we have no actual membership list, and Sourcewatch only uses the term "ties" when making the list. So you could say:
 * '' A majority of those who were listed by Sourcewatch as having "ties" to ALEC are Republican, although that list is stated to be "partial."
 * And nothing more really. Collect (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. What I've proposed is a statement of fact taken directly from the New York Times, a reliable source for statements of fact. I don't see the point in trying to obscure things with editorial caveats which are not found in reliable sources. Your proposed text fails WP:SYN, at a minimum, unless there are some reliable sources making that connection which you've omitted to mention. MastCell Talk 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I suggest that WP:CONSENSUS does require a positive consensus for including such "tables" and I am not part of such a consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why Collect believes we need to use the Sourcewatch wording when it uses far less words and is far more simple (as he states he prefers) to simply use the NYT source with perhaps three words, "mainly Republican group," per MC's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)