Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 4

ALEC was not founded to serve as a conservative counterweight to the NCSL
How do we know this? Because ALEC was founded 2 years before the NCSL was created.

Greenblatt cannot be used as a Reliable Source. Rebeccalutz (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I agree that the source is unreliable on this point as at least technically it appears to be impossible. In light of this I've removed the Governing ref and changed the language to reflect the Bishop source.
 * That said, I disagree that this apparent inaccuracy renders the rest of the Governing source unreliable. There are a number of plausible explanations for Greenblatt's "conservative counterweight" sentence. Perhaps he was referring to NCSL's predecessors, which were consolidated in 1975, or perhaps he was referring to brewing plans to found NCSL, or perhaps he was referring to ALEC's formation as a 501(c)(3) in 1975. In any case, the article is consistent in all other respects with all of the other cited reliable sources, and the publisher has a strong reputation, so overall I'd say this source is quite reliable for issues other than the one you raise here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Greenblott is wholly unreliable. When are not psychics, we can only take Greeblott for what he writes. He wrote a very specific claim and that is patently ridiculous. He also claims that corporations hold veto power over model policies. According to ALECExposed, there is no such veto power. The source, and all of its dependent material need to be removed. Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. And I don't appreciate your knee-jerk disparagement of any source that paints ALEC in a negative light. Keep this up and I'll see you at WP:COIN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'm trying to make this article more accurate. I've proposed increasing coverage of ALEC's critics in the lead and expanding coverage of what seems to be their most controversial issue. My go to sources have been ALECEposed, Slate, HuffingtonPost and Rachel Maddow. You, on the other hand, propose universally negative text that often turns up unsupported by a Reliable Source or cited to an unreliable source. Feel free to see me anywhere that you want to see me.

Two of Greenblott's biggest claims are patently (and I should mention, easily verifiable) falsehoods. He is either a liar or unqualified. Either way, he needs to go as a source as does the material presently cited to him. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What is your second perceived falsehood, aside from the "conservative counterweight" one? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ain't no "perceived" about it: "He also claims that corporations hold veto power over model policies. According to ALECExposed, there is no such veto power. The source, and all of its dependent material need to be removed." Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no need to throw out Greenblatt based on two statements he made that are countered by ALEC Exposed or proved wrong by chronology. The Greenblatt source has a lot of other information which can be used. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, how many times would Mr. Greenblatt need to be found to be fabricating information before his writings should be questioned? Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The man lied about why (and when) ALEC was founded. The man lied about businesses having a veto. Why are you so excited to take everything else that he wrote at face value? Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Lied? Seriously? The only one who has lost all credibility is you, Ms. Lutz. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When was ALEC founded again? Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ms. Lutz, sorry about the veto thing, I forgot about that one. What reliable source are you saying contradicts that private interest members have veto power? I don't see anything on that ALECExposed page that does so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Its in the leaked ALEC voting procedure that I posted above. Do you have a reliable source that says supports Greenblatt's claim? Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're getting at; I don't need one. But you need a reliable source if you're going to say Greenblatt's language about veto power is an "easily verifiable falsehood." And a diagram on the ALECExposed website about ALEC's PR strategy that doesn't say anything about vetoes is definitely not it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with RL. This specific article is unreliable (and I like Governing and used to be a subscriber). In this case not so good. As an aside, I also believe it is highly inappropriate to throw around COIN suggestions willy-nilly. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a suggestion, I'm preparing a report. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how that ALECExposed page shows that the article's statement about veto power is an "easily verified falsehood." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Its in the link above unless you think that ALECExposed forged all of those documents. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Baby and bathwater
Rebeccalutz is keen on removing anything from Greenblatt, even though Governing magazine is a reliable source. She holds that Greenblatt gets a couple of things flat wrong, so everything he writes must be thrown out. I hold a milder position that says Greenblatt can be used for anything other than that which is shown to be wrong. If Rebeccalutz wants to throw out the baby and the bathwater together, I suggest the next step is to post a question at WP:RSN. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And so far she's only shown that one thing is wrong. The other thing is just her say-so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started an WP:RSN discussion at about this here (permanent link here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ALEC was not founded to counter the recently-formed Environmental Protection Agency
This assertion is not supported by the text and needs to be removed Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says: ALEC executive director said in 2005, "Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and instituted price and wage controls. 'ALEC was really started to counter that, at least on the state level,' [ Alec executive director Duane ] Parde told me at the 2005 convention." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats the close of a long paragraph that paints a significantly different picture that "ALEC was founded to counter the recently-formed Environmental Protection Agency".Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it to add the price and wage controls (which I had accidentally missed). Would you like to propose alternative language that you feel better reflects the source? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The interviewer was clearly listing ancillary symptoms of what he percieved to be the growth of federal government. I think thats laid out just fine below. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats how I read it too. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see some ambiguity, but "clearly?" How about "to counter government expansion under the Nixon administration, such as the creation of the Environment Protection Agency and the institution of price and wage controls"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I will again use the term clearly, the source clearly says that Nixon was a continuation of, not the origin of, what they perceive to be the problem. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that consistent with the sentence: "Much of the impetus to create ALEC came from the right's disappointment with Richard Nixon."? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the source presents the growth of the federal government as a decades long-problem. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rebeccalutz's recent changes
has recently made (here, here) a variety of changes that I feel are rather gross violations of WP:NPV and WP:PROMOTION. In a nutshell I'd describe her efforts as whitewashing. For instance, she removed reliably sourced language describing ALEC's conservative ties. Some of the material (such as saying that Common Cause's IRS complaint was "unsuccessful") aren't sourced. Ms. Lutz's first edit comment was "Edited the lead, increased specificity to the Cronon part," and her second was "I am willing to discuss the wording for lead but everything else is cited." Ms. Lutz, this is your opportunity to justify your changes. I'll note in response to your second edit comment that just because something is reliably sourced (and I dispute that all of your changes are reliably sourced) doesn't mean that it is neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead states that "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." There is no citation in the lead for the lawsuits being filed because the information is well sourced in the body and the idea that the lawsuits were filed does't seem to be controversial. Why then would there need to be a citation in the lead that the lawsuits all failed. Why does the reader need to be told in the lead that those lawsuits were files but its controversial to let him or her know that they all failed? I don't know what the opposite of whitewashing is but I think that I'd be on solid ground to accuse you of that. Is there anything else that you were wondering about? Rebeccalutz (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in the body do we say that Common Cause's IRS complaint was unsuccessful? Isn't it still pending? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the challenges have been unsuccessful, I remember that wording in the previous version but will do some digging and hold off until I can source that word in the lead. Anything else that troubles you? Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of it. The only thing I you did that I agreed with, I re-added. Several of your changes have were previously objected to and talk page discussions are ongoing (e.g. model policies). Then you removed reliably sourced, important information such as the fact that ALEC serves conservative legislators and patrons, mainly corporations. You removed the properly attributed Nichols quote without an explanation. Then you reverted changes that I gave explanations for deletion, such as the reference to digital privacy. You added a portion about sentencing reform that included both quotes from the ALEC website without in-text attribution and WP:WEASEL words ("unusual alliances," without further explanation). Collectively your edits are blatantly WP:PROMOTIONal in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your text for the opening sentence falls very far from NPOV and is sourced to a left-wing non-profit. I'm open to discussing what comes next, but that text cannot stand, it's inaccurate, undersourced, and far from impartial. My suggestion would be (and I think we are almost there): 1 paragraph about what is universally held true about ALEC, one paragraph about what ALEC and its supporters say that it does, one paragraph about what's its detractors say that it does.
 * I did not remove the John Nichols quote.
 * I'm sorry to say I missed any discussion on why that sourced material should be deleted. I will hold off on reincluding it until that is resolved here.
 * That text was my own and was sourced to the New York Times and Rachel Maddow, parties that are hardly in the business of promoting a organization like ALEC.
 * Was there anything else that you were concerned with?Rebeccalutz (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, I'm concerned with all of it (except for the change about ALEC's headquarters). It's getting difficult to parse out the different pieces, so I suggest you start a new sub-thread for each one that you want included. To get the process started I'll start one to get things started. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's just ridiculous. You have concerns about 4 edits, that's lovely, lets talk about those. "all of it" is an unacceptable objection. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one who made a smorgasbord of controversial edits without explanation. I broke out the first issue, now it's your turn. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You've made quite the impressive and controversial buffet yourself, by the precident you are advocating for I could just say "all of it is objectionable" and undo away. But that would not be productive.

So with the above, lets keep talking about the language for the opening. Anything else that you are concerned about? Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The difference is that I broke down my edits into pieces and provided an edit summary for each one. That gives you something to respond to. You lumped all of your changes into one edit with an unhelpful and combative comment, so I don't know the basis for each change. Perhaps if you provided these bases you might convince me of their correctness? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Are edit summaries a substitute for discussion? Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

First sentence
Ms. Lutz says the first sentence "falls very far from NPOV and is sourced to a left-wing non-profit." I don't understand what's non-neutral about this sentence. It's a direct paraphrase of the New York Times and FCIR sources, which are certainly reliable. I previously did a bit of search on FCIR and I couldn't find any reliable evidence of bias. Regardless, both of these sources seem quite reliable (regardless of any perceived WP:BIAS) and aren't controverted by any other reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * that text is not supported by the NTY source, it is lifted from the non-profit whose authorship is dubious at best. It paints a deliberately misleading message. Lets just stick to the facts for the opening paragraph. Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a mix of both sources. The Times says it's "an organization of conservative state legislators." You removed that part of the sentence as well. In any case you can say the FCIR piece's "authorship is dubious at best," but do you have any evidence to back that up or is this based purely on your personal suspicions? "Stick to the facts" - I used the reliable sources' words verbatim to make sure that everything was verifiable. What more are you asking for, the WP:TRUTH? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "that pushes for laws favorable to its patrons, mainly U.S. corporations" is just silly and supported only by Goodman, an Opinion-column writer publishing on a blog. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just changed "pushes for laws" to "advocates for legislation" per WP:TONE, as I agree "pushes for laws" is a little to informal. As for the sourcing, the FCIR appears to be legitimate, reputable piece of journalism written under an experienced, professional editorial staff. I see no evidence that this is an opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a blog post from a retired op-ed columnist. What was wrong with "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization, composed of politically conservative state legislators." Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wrong is that ALEC is notable not only as a collection of conservative legislators, but as an environment where those legislators collaborate closely with corporations and other special interests to write legislation. The lead sentence needs to be a bit more complete. MastCell Talk 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the previous text read something to the effect of "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a 501(c)(3) American organization, composed of politically conservative state legislators, businesses and non-profits". I think that would do well. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you do, but you don't seem to be WP:LISTENing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The FCIR source is from their blog section, an opinion piece. It is reliable for its own opinion. That is aside from its position as a leading regional advocacy journalism org. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that it says "blog" doesn't mean it's unreliable. It reads like professionally editing journalism. WP:NEWSBLOG. As for them being advocacy journalists, you'll have to provide sourcing for that. What I see is an editorial staff with strong mainstream press credentials. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

FCIR is not an RS, ergo their blog fails the criteria for newsblog Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've got the logic exactly backwards. If it's a news blog, then the fact that it's a blog doesn't disqualify it as an RS. Moreover, you keep repeating the mantra that FCIR isn't an RS, but the only evidence you've pointed to is the word "blog." So your reasoning is circular. It says it's a blog, so it's not an RS, so it's not a news blog. That completely ignores what WP:NEWSBLOG actually says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have started an WP:RSN discussion at about the reliability of the FCIR source here (permanent link here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of recent changes
Hello, I think it's appropriate given the controversial nature of the subject and the extent of my WP:BOLD changes that I explain what I've been doing the last couple of days. As I believe others have noted, this article has needed an organizational overhaul for some time. In particular the "Critics" section was a mish-mash of criticisms by various media outlets and advocacy/watchdog groups with little coherence. It also became so large as a result of recent controversies that it was overwhelming the rest of the article. My main goal has been to refactor things so that criticisms are integrated with the appropriate subject matter. For instance, criticisms about funding were moved into a new section called "Funding." I believe this is a more encyclopedic approach. I'll note, however, that in making some of these changes I've exposed some possible WP:WEIGHT WP:BALASPS issues. For instance, the "Funding" section contains only criticisms by liberal groups, but I'll bet among the reliable sources we're already citing we could find some description of the less controversial aspects of ALEC's funding/budget.

As I was doing a lot of refactoring, it's possible that I inadvertently lost some material along the way. If I did, I apologize in advance.

Please reserve this thread for discussion of my recent edits overall. If you wish to initiate discussion on particular edits or sections then please consider starting a separate thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All and all, not too bad on the criticism paragraph in the lead. Some initial thoughts: why open with the phrase "since 2011"? I see what you are going for, but presumably ALEC had received scrutiny from the left before 2011.


 * I think the publication section that went missing is worth reintroducing but I don't know where. Maybe in "Organization"? Rebeccalutz (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the material in the article, there was indeed some criticism prior to 2009 2011 but nothing out of the ordinary. In 2011 it exploded. Regarding the publications, that section was supported solely by ALEC sources and therefore struck me as not sufficiently notable for inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

According to aboutself "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Publishing books doesn't seem like a controversial claim. Rebeccalutz (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My concern is not about whether the material is accurate but whether it's sufficiently notable for inclusion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that is verifiable gets included in Wikipedia. Generally speaking we measure notability based on coverage by independent reliable sources, in line with WP:GNG. To rely on article subjects' own websites would take us into dangerous self-WP:PROMOTION territory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It was mostly sourced to other sites. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it was all sourced to ALEC. One was an ALEC press release posted on a non-ALEC website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sentencing reform"
wants to add the following material:

ALEC's Justice Performance Project is a "program to advance proven criminal justice reforms based on over two decades of data-driven research and practice" focused on "Corrections and Reentry, Pretrial Release, and Overcriminalization". ALEC's proposed solutions for prison overcrowding have forged unusual alliances  and earned praise from the left.

The first sentence is sourced to ALEC's website and is self-serving and thereby violates WP:ABOUTSELF. The second sentence uses non-neutral WP:PROMOTIONal language (ALEC's proposed "solutions"). It also used WP:WEASELy language about unspecified "unusual alliances" (with whom?) and "praise from the left" (from whom?). "Praise from the left" is also WP:SYNTH. Most important, it isn't verifiable as it's not supported by the cited sources. The first three sources only say ACLU is working with ALEC; they don't say the ACLU has agreed to any of ALEC's "proposed solutions." The fourth and fifth sources don't have any praise for any of ALEC's "proposed solutions"; they simply describe ALEC as part of movement of conservative groups leaning toward shortening prison sentences, and they praise that movement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * aboutself says that self-published sources may not be used if "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". This is neither an exceptional claim nor is it unduly self-serving.
 * The word "unusual" is taken directly from the source material.
 * They literally use the term "Heros" but I can dig up more sources or name specific leftists. Rebeccalutz (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the self-serving stuff sourced to ALEC's website needs to go, in favor of actual independent, third-party reliable sources. (This basic matter of sourcing priority seems to be a recurring issue). I'm not convinced that the proposed text accurately represents the sources. I get the sense that we're torturing the sources in order to say something positive about ALEC, rather than simply conveying their content and context. For instance, the Washington Monthly article describes ALEC as "now-infamous" and makes clear that ALEC has been a long-time proponent of mandatory minimum sentences and private prisons, coinciding with the priorities of the private-incarceration corporations on its donor list. In 2007, ALEC's priorities switched to "sentencing reform". The MSNBC source and the American Interest source do not support the proposed text stating that ALEC has drawn "praise from the left"; neither says anything about praise directed at ALEC. MastCell Talk 17:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the Washington Monthly source was my replacement for this WaPo WonkBlog post, a WP:TERTIARY source. But that doesn't affect your point, and I agree with it 100%. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I included that quote (in quotation marks and properly attributed) because I thought it would be easier to lay it out as "here is what they say they do, here is what other people say about that". I'm happy to phrase things other ways and exclude their reference but you all would agree that this has enough coverage by Reliable Source to merit coverage, yes? Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it merits coverage. You must still conform to the reliable sources and comply with WP policies and guidelines -- most notably WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPV, and WP:OR, all of which you violated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, lets just go ahead and note that I strongly disagree with that accusation.
 * Moving forward. Does anyone object to the above (BI, WM, WSJ, MSNBC and AI) as Reliable Sources? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you want to cite them for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence. If ALEC is trying to undo the prison mess it created, that belongs in the entry. I checked the WSJ story, which I consider a reliable source. I remember reading it, and Neil King Jr. is an objective, reliable reporter who goes back before Murdoch. However, the WSJ story doesn't say anything about what ALEC is doing, except "The result is some unlikely bedfellows, with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council working alongside the ACLU." That doesn't really say anything. If you had a clear statement that they were doing something substantial, I'd include it. --Nbauman (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN) report against Rebeccalutz
For those who are interested, I made a conflict of interest report against at WP:COIN. Discussion here, permanent link here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

New sources for consideration
Several independent, reliable sources have commented on steps taken by ALEC (and its affiliated legislators) to avoid open-records laws and to "shield from public view the discussions of elected officials and corporate leaders it brings together to write model legislation for state governments": There have also been several prominent stories published by independent, reliable sources in the past few days based on further document leaks from within ALEC, including: The upshot of these sources seems to be that, after ALEC's role in drafting "stand-your-ground" laws came to light in the wake of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, corporate donors fled ALEC in response to public disapproval. ALEC is considering a by-law change requiring its senior legislative members to pledge to put ALEC's interests first. ALEC is setting up a 501(c)(4) entity called the "Jeffersonian project", which would operate entirely under ALEC's direction to "provide greater legal protection" for the organization. And so on. The documents themselves are here. I wanted to open a discussion about how to incorporate these sources into the article. MastCell Talk 19:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring you. I'll get to this in the next few days. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Accidental" inclusion of ALEC mission statement
The word "accidental" isn't supported by the source. Three points: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * added (without comment) the word "accidental" to Burgin's inclusion of the ALEC mission statement in the Florida bill.
 * I reverted with the comment: "rm "accidentally" as unsourced; not a close WP:PARAPHRASE"
 * Ms. Lutz re-reverted with the comment: "'Oops', 'forgot', etc. would support that wording"
 * 1) The words "oops" doesn't appear in the article, just in the title. Therefore it's not reliable. Headlines are frequently written to attract readers rather than for accuracy/neutrality. (And even if it were in the article itself, reliable sourcing requires explicit statements, not inferences.)
 * 2) The word "forgot" appears in the article, but it's preceded by "apparently." As in, "...she apparently forgot to remove ALEC’s mission statement..." This is an express signal that the author is speculating. Speculation can't be the basis for reliable sourcing.
 * 3) The article appears to be a mixture of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sourcing, and in particular the line about how Burgin "apparently forgot" is clearly tertiary since it links to a secondary source by Common Cause. The Common Cause source doesn't say anything about Burgin "forgetting." It does say, after describing what happened: "As a Texas Governor might say; 'Oops!'" However this is clearly editorial in nature and also does not explicitly say that the inclusion of the ALEC language was accidental. In other words, the inclusion of the word "accidental" is based purely on speculation.
 * Do you honestly think that it was done intentionally? Is there anything in the source that says that it was done intentionally? Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I never suggested adding the word "intentionally." If you aren't relying on statements explicitly made by reliable sources then "accidentally" is WP:SYNTH. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The post that the source is based off of uses the word "mistake". I would be OK with "mistakenly" too. Rebeccalutz (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added "mistakenly" to the text, but not the section header. Adding it to the header strikes me as slightly non-neutral as it's redundant and appears to be managing ALEC's reputation. One instance of "mistakenly" is enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like it would be better off in the heading then. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To make it clearer for the reader. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Informal request for comment
I'm inclined to assume good faith on this issue, but my feelings about whether "mistakenly" should be in the heading or in the body are clouded by my thoughts about Ms. Lutz's conduct related to other issues. Perhaps a third editor can weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought is that this page uses modifiers in a few other sections, for example: Alex is accused of wrongly lobbying, leaked models were published. I see this as being in the same realm lest a glancing reader view it as some sort of strategy. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Legally problematic language in the new Guardian reference
There are a couple problems in the wording of the new Guardian article that can probably be chalked up to a lack of knowledge of the complexities of te American legal system. Mainly, the Wikipedia text read that the Jefferson Project would allow ALEC to do "more overt lobbying". This implies that ALEC does lobbying. This states that ALEC has committed a crime, as fact rather than accusation. Many organizations have accused ALEC of committing a crime as those accusations are rightly covered but none of those accusations have panned out. We can't state as fact that ALEC is guilty of a crime while the jury is still out. I put the text in quotes but am not really sure how to move forward. Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is well aware of the promotional actions of ALEC, these actions amounting to lobbying. Such statements, plentiful in reliable sources, are perfectly fine for us to use, as Wikipedia is not bound by whether the U.S. Judicial system has acted. You can see a similar statement in the biography of Hilary Rosen who has been reported as performing actions that are equivalent to a lobbyist, even though she is not legally registered as a lobbyist. To sum up, it is not our concern how the U.S. legal system reacts to reports of ALEC breaking the law. We are not limited by federal statutes in telling the reader what the reliable sources say about ALEC. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Ms. Lutz's approach was correct even if her implementation was a bit off. Attribution plus quotation marks implies that the source actually says the quoted material, which wasn't the case. I changed the quote to reflect the source.
 * Quotation rather than paraphrasing is important here because, at least how it was written, it implied that ALEC had engaged in lobbying, which hasn't been conclusively established. If the Guardian had explained in detail how it came to the conclusion that ALEC had engaged in lobbying then that might be a different story. (As an aside, there was no suggestion of any "crime" committed, as I don't think improper lobbying of this kind is a crime.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that although I would have preferred Ms. Lutz had included an informative edit summary, I do very much appreciate her coming here to explain her rationale. Now, if she would only learn to edit section-by-section so as to reduce the number of edit conflicts... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As I understand it (and I may be wrong), 501c3 non-profits may not lobby. Accusations that they are in fact lobbying (federal tax fraud) are the substance legal complaint filed by Common Cause with the IRS. Should this legal complaint be taken up by the IRS and proven ALEC would be liable for fraudulent federal tax filings, a criminal offense.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite right. I don't think anyone has accused ALEC of tax fraud, and ALEC could be 100% honest in its filings and could still have its 501(c)(3) status taken away if the IRS agrees with Common Cause. These are related but separate things. In any case this a side issue since the problem was addressed with an attributed quote. This isn't a BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also my understanding that 501c3s are not allowed to engage in lobbying (and ALEC has said that it does not) but take that for what its worth. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're all in agreement on that point. The (side) question is whether an accusation of lobbying is also (or suggests) an accusation of criminal conduct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any Wikipedia rule or guideline that says we can't include an accusation of illegal behavior if the accusation is supported by a WP:RS, and the Guardian is definitely a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 501c3 organizations are allowed to lobby, so long as it is not a "substantial part of its activities." 501(c)(3)s include organizations involved in "religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals".  There is no question that these types of organizations lobby.  An organization building an opera house for example may lobby legislators for permission to build it or for public funds or tax exemptions.  That does not mean their primary activity is lobbying - it is to build the opera house and lobbying is essential to complete the primary task.
 * Furthermore, there is a distinction between how a statute defines a term and its ordinary meaning.
 * Finally, "WP:BLPCRIME" applies to living persons, not corporations.
 * TFD (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For us to decide whether or not ALEC broke the law is (1) WP:OR and (2) unnecessary for the entry. If the Guardian, a WP:RS, said it, we can quote it. If ALEC denies it, we can quote that too. --Nbauman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Model policies" v. "Model bills"
Most of the sources seem to quote the ALEC language that calls the drafts "model policies". Any objection to changing them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccalutz (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Most reliable sources use "model bills," so that's what we should use. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Other sources go with "policies", "bills", "laws", "regulations" and a host of other terms. Why not run with the source material the way that the article did before and use "policies". Bill sounds like they were already passed into law. Rebeccalutz (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Because most reliable sources use "bills." That's pretty much end of story. In any case "bills" doesn't imply they were passed because "bills" by definition are draft legislation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to challenge your use of "most". Rebeccalutz (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Then take a quick look through 5 random news sources cited by this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. They don't seem to support your claim of "most". Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Tell me what sources you looked at. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

All of them. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So, what was the breakdown? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The breakdown was as follows, looking only at news sources and excluding less established left-leaning outlets such as PR Watch and TPM Muckraker:
 * "model bill": 12
 * "model legislation": 6
 * mix of "model bill" and "model legislation": 7
 * mix of "model bill" and "model resolution": 1
 * "model policy": 0
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we prune this Cronon paragraph out?
It has been tagged for relevance since May of 2012.

To remind everyone: Professor Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, created a political blog during the Wisconsin Act 10 battles. It attacked the Republican legislators and Scott Walker. Cronon is a state employee. It is illegal for state employees to campaign using state resources. The Republican Party of Wisconsin made an open records (FOIA) request of the University of Wisconsin for Cronon's state email account asking for emails that mentioned a variety of political people (mostly Republican legislators). There ensued national interest in this relating to academic freedom.

Cronon had mentioned and discussed ALEC on his blog before the request. He suggested that his remarks tying Act 10 to ALEC had spurred the open record request. This supposition was echoed by at least one national columnist. ALEC was not mentioned in the open records request. ALEC did not make the open records request. ALEC was mentioned in the blog.

Cronon has his own article. Act 10, Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republican party and legislators all have their own articles. I'd suggest that this paragraph does not fit in the ALEC article, and is amply described elsewhere. ALEC wasn't involved in this incident except to be mentioned. That is hardly a solid standard for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. Arzel (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the more the Criticism the better in my opinion. I consider this article, at least the first half, too heavily influenced by ALEC. NPOV? Non existent in my opinion at least for the introduction. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, what? We are talking about a specific section relating to an incident. We are not talking about the lede, or broader article tone. This only tangentially touches ALEC. ALEC is 'mentioned in the blog' of a UW employee, the employee is hit with an "Open Records" request. People are outraged. It's an incident, notable, but not involving ALEC. It as an organization is uninvolved. This is reported elsewhere on Wikipedia. How does it belong here? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The incident involves ALEC clearly and centrally. Cronon criticized ALEC in his blog, and in response he was hit with an open-records request by the Wisconsin Republican Party . Cronon's blog post even "generated a tenfold increase in traffic to ALEC's website that caused it to crash". The section should be shorter, more readable, and ideally better integrated into the article rather than condemned to the criticism ghetto, but it's clearly relevant to this article. MastCell Talk 19:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So the story is important in that Cronon's blog criticism of the organization caused the organization's website to crash? Maybe. I 'm not sure that is enough relevance, because while the blog talked about ALEC, the open records request didn't talk about the blog or ALEC. The RPW believed Cronon was improperly campaigning on state resources. It asked about "Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union", a list of named senators and two union leaders. Later the party's executive director, thanked the university for complying with the request saying: "We share [the] belief that university faculty are not above the rules prohibiting the use of state resources for political purposes."  I see the relevance at the Cronan article and the 2011 protest article...not so much here. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party was, of course, not silly enough to openly state that they filed the request on ALEC's behalf. Nonetheless, the linkage was obvious and prominent in reliable sources on the subject, and hence relevant here. I don't think the website crash is the main thrust; perhaps I shouldn't have muddied the waters, but I cited that source to once again underscore the link between Cronon and ALEC, a link which is prominent in relevant reliable sources. MastCell Talk 20:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now read each of the refs. None suggests that ALEC requested the Republican party to make the Open Records. The refs do however often prominently mention ALEC as a subject of Cronon's blog, which was not in dispute. I'm not sure ALEC being a bystander in a fight between Cronan and the RPW is enough to be relevant at this article, but until and unless we get deeper consensus on this it should stay.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you've read all of the refs, you probably saw the first paragraph of the Journal-Sentinel article I linked. It reads:
 * The conservative group in question is, of course, ALEC, and the source directly suggests that the GOP's open-records request was a response to Cronon's criticism of ALEC. MastCell Talk 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I did read that article, but didn't see the "ALEC" so missed that. Thanks for your good eyes. I note that it doesn't suggest that this was an ALEC response to the blog post, just a "response". The main point remains of course, this is an incident springing from a mention of ALEC in a blog. This is not about something done to or by ALEC. They are peripheral. However since we can't agree on the relevance, it remains until other editors weigh in. I'm dropping this for the present. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite weak. The "apparent response" appears to be due to Cronon, himself.  At least, that's the only other mention of a connection between the records request and ALEC.  All the other criticism of the records request appears to be criticism of the idea of searching a professor's E-mails for any reason.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite weak. The "apparent response" appears to be due to Cronon, himself.  At least, that's the only other mention of a connection between the records request and ALEC.  All the other criticism of the records request appears to be criticism of the idea of searching a professor's E-mails for any reason.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cronon suffered quasi-harassment in apparent retaliation for being among the first to bring ALEC to prominent public attention (even though ALEC as an institution is not known to have been involved in such retaliation attempts). It is likely that ALEC would not have become widely publicly known until later if the Cronon incident hadn't occurred, which certainly would seem to make it notable with respect to the topic of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cronon is clearly relevant. In It Started in Wisconsin, scholars Paul and Mari Jo Buhle say that the Cronon case significantly raised public awareness of ALEC's activities. Many observers believed Cronon was right about the overreaction of the FOIA request, that ALEC was being defended by the Wisconsin Republican Party who were looking to apply a chilling effect. Looking at the case a year later, Mary Bottari writes that Cronon's "thesis has been upheld"; she points to an ALEC Exposed report which enumerates how Wisconsin's legislature and governor have become ALEC's handmaiden. Bottari emphasizes that ALEC was little-known before the Cronon case. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, concur with AnonMoos. It needs to be trimmed and pointed to .  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos did not say to trim the bit. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, he/she didn't. He's the only one who has presented an argument for inclusion, which I've come to accept.  There are still a number of editors who have requested removal or trimming; I'm now in favor of trimming, as it's still only peripherally about ALEC.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Cronon incident was the catalyst for ALEC receiving wide media coverage for the first time. If the Cronon incident hadn't occurred, then that probably would have happened at a different time and in a different manner. AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, do you have a ref for that or is that just your assesment? I would suggest that the campaign by Color of Change to defund ALEC in the wake of the Treyvon shooting was what garnered the largest media coverage. The importance of Cronon as regards ALEC continues to escape me.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Before Cronon, very few people were paying much critical attention to ALEC. Don't know how it can be phrased more clearly than that... AnonMoos (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Could the more important parts be moved into the main criticism section? Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think is in the main criticism section (although it seems sort of redundant as the entire article is a criticism section) Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, can it be merged with the general paragraph at the top of the criticism section?Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If the Cronon e-mail incident precipitated interest in ALEC, as AnonMoos suggests, then we should be able to find a reliable source that says that, and include it in this section. If no such source exists then the relationship between the e-mail incident and ALEC is too attenuated to include the e-mail incident material, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Paul Krugman calls ALEC "shadowy" before Cronon's revelatory blog post. The Buhles say in It Started in Wisconsin that Cronon's blog received 500,000 hits and that signs quickly cropped up around campus saying "Tell Me About ALEC" etc. The Buhles say that ALEC's response was a direct reaction to Cronon's blog, in the form of Wisconsin Republican Freedom of Information Act request for Cronon's digital records. Cronon himself wrote that the FOIA request was connected to his ALEC revelations, and this conclusion by Cronon was repeated widely by observers such as John Nichols (journalist) in The Nation and the chief editor of the The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild. Cronon wrote in his blog: "...I'm hoping you'll agree with me that it may be time to start paying more attention to ALEC..." and this, too, was repeated widely in the media, for instance by Rothschild of The Progressive, Nichols in The Nation, Daily Kos which says Cronon "got the ball rolling" on media interest in ALEC, Bill Berkowitz for Truth Out who said that Cronon dragged ALEC out of secrecy and into the limelight, and by Barry Sussman, the editor of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University,
 * In any case, so much ink was expended on this issue in the media that it has its own notability. The thought of removing it from this article is preposterous; it was highly publicized and very much relevant to ALEC. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two observations:
 * It sounds like this incident merits its own article, per WP:GNG. In lieu of that the appropriate section in the Cronon article needs a re-write, as it's woefully lacking. Once either of those is done this section can be written in WP:SUMMARY style with a WP:CFORK.
 * Regardless, the link between ALEC and the Wisconsin Republicans' e-mail inquiry needs to be better explained here, using some of the sources you mention above (excluding blogs like Daily Kos, of course). As the article is currently written, we have Cronon writing about ALEC, obviously relevant, and then we have a third party (Wisconsin Republicans, a related but separate organization) retaliating against Cronon, not nearly as relevant to this particular article. If the link between the e-mail scandal and ALEC involves the fact that the scandal led to greater scrutiny of ALEC then we should say so, with reliable sources in support., would you like to take a stab at this, or shall I?
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these conclusions reached in somewhere that isn't a leftie blog post? Rebeccalutz (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not appear that Rebeccalutz is really paying attention here; I already mentioned a book source. The Buhles wrote It Started In Wisconsin. The publisher, Verso, is a respected left-wing imprint, and the Buhles are respected left-wing scholars.
 * The bigger problem I have with the casual dismissal of "leftie blog post" sources is that a bunch are by respected authors, professional journalists, experts in their field. The newsblog of today is the op-ed column of yore, not just some random dude. I have gone to some trouble to show good sources including Sussman, Berkowitz, Krugman, Nichols and Rothschild. If the expert sources are dismissed either because they are "leftie" or because they are blogs then that is a misapplication of our guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I have no concern about the reliability of those sources (aside from Daily Kos), but I do question whether these tie ALEC to the e-mail scandal in the way I'm asking about, and since I don't have access to the Buhle source I'm relying on your help. Does the source say the increased attention (500,000 blog hits) was the direct result of Cronon's posts, or was it the result of the e-mail scandal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So the Buhles edited the book and wrote parts of it. However, Mary Bottari, 2011 winner of The Sidney Award for journalism, wrote chapter 4 in which Cronon is discussed. Bottari, who I already mentioned in relation to her investigative news item in Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch, says that Cronon's blog itself got 500,000 hits, not ALEC's website, just in case you were confused. Bottari connects this incredible popularity of Cronon's blog with greater light shining on previously little-known "shadowy" ALEC, including the campus signs cropping up naming ALEC. At PR Watch, Bottari says that Cronon's blog thesis about the connection between ALEC and the FOIA request by Wisconsin Republicans "was upheld" a year later following revelations that 49 of Wisconsin's 132 legislators were members of ALEC along with the governor, and that these top leaders were implementing ALEC's right-wing vision in that state. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that journalist Mary Bottari and executive director Lisa Graves both won The Sidney Award for their investigative journalism work to uncover facts about ALEC, the work called ALEC Exposed (official website, ALEC Exposed at PR Watch, ALEC Exposed at The Nation by John Nichols, ALEC Exposed at The Atlantic by Nancy Scola, ALEC Exposed by Bill Moyers, ALEC Exposed interview at the Sidney Hillman Foundation). I argue that anything written by Bottari about ALEC will have the journalism industry's respect behind it. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That Bottari "was upheld" quote from PR Watch, do you have a link for that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

, based on your last couple of comments in this thread, which I have to be honest I don't completely follow, I'm asking for your assistance to write a sentence or two (with appropriate sourcing) that links the Wisconsin Republican Party's fishing expedition (or whatever more neutral term you want to use) with ALEC itself, e.g. explaining how the uproar about the fishing expedition led to increased scrutiny of ALEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As it's been 11 days and still hasn't responded to the above, I'm removing the material about the Wisconsin Republican Party. If a strong, understandable link between the content and ALEC is written then by all means bring this material back. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you did not "completely follow" my posts here—I could have been clearer. I have added text to the article using the references I have been discussing. I hope that clarifies matters. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

addition from slate.com/blogs
Recently a new section was added to Notable Policies and Model Bill section. It was sourced to a Slate blog. It was neither about ALEC policy nor model bills. It was an article about homosexuality/gay rights advocacy published by ALEC in 1985. The Slate blog is a parody of part of the 1985 ALEC article. It includes a link to the original article. That original article specifically states that it is not necessarily the views of the Council, its officers, or its members. This addition is WP:UNDUE, not RS, stale, and not a policy or model bill. For those reasons I removed the addition. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was sourced to Slate, which is not a blog. You may want to look a little more closely at things before jerking your knee so hard. &mdash; goethean 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the mistyping, I have corrected above. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read it quite carefully. That's how I got to the link to the original document with its disclaimer. This ref is a parody on Slate, with a link to the original document being parodied. It is one of Slate's blog postings (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward.html). They call it a blog so I was taking them at their word. The fact that it's a pointedly humorous skewering of ALEC reinforced my belief that this was a blog posting. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if this wasn't a blog post, the fact that it is satire/parody and not a news article would leave us hard pressed to use it. The further fact that the original 1985 document has a disclaimer about it not being the views of the organization pretty much should close it out. We can't ref a new section to a parody of a three decades old document that explicitly doesn't represent the views of the organization.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You were correct to remove this. Not to mention the section was written as original research.  Not to mention that the source for the Slate piece likely violated the copywrite of the document.  Arzel (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Humor is protected speech. I don't think Slate is in any danger of copyright infringement. :) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There actually seems to be an ALEC memo like that. It's sourced to People for the American Way, which I don't think has a reputation for making things up. It accurately represents the views of many groups which are cited in the memo, such as Focus on the Family, in 1985. It has a disclaimer that it represents the view of the author, not ALEC, but even so, it's significant that ALEC circulated it. Other lobbying organizations didn't circulate memos like that. It reflects ALEC's history. As for copyright violation, that's not our problem, but it would be fair use in any case. If the editor can find any other WP:RSs that refer to it, that would give it enough WP:WEIGHT to go in the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * &mdash; goethean 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this subject should be avoided simply because of the disclaimer at the bottom of the last page. The article was written by an ALEC employee on ALEC letterhead at ALEC's direction and published by ALEC. That said, I question the notability of this issue. It's about ALEC's position back in 1985. Not only has ALEC's position on social legislation changed since then, but there was a lot more homophobia back then. In addition this subject has (so far) only received attention in the quite left-leaning press, the least left-leaning being the Huffington Post. If/when the mainstream media picks this up then it is probably time to includes this in our article, IMO. In addition if we are going to include this we need balancing content. Here's some. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I take the same position on the recent news about ALEC's position in the 1980s about apartheid. Not sufficiently notable to merit a paragraph in the "Notable policies..." section. A sentence on each of these might be appropriate in the "History" section. Again, if these are included there must be balancing content, most importantly the fact that ALEC doesn't take a stand on social issues anymore. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point that the memo was written on ALEC letterhead. That makes a big difference. It may not mean that this is ALEC's position, but it's a position that ALEC believed should be circulated, and it's a position that an ALEC employee developed on ALEC time.
 * I don't follow the argument that we should wait for the mainstream media, not just the left-leaning media, to pick it up. If the left-leaning media reports on a legitimate, well-documented story that the mainstream media is ignoring, why should we ignore it too? For example, the mainstream media often ignores war atrocities committed by their own side and their political allies, while the left-leaning media reports it (Cf. My_Lai_Massacre. If multiple left-leaning sources have solidly-documented stories of atrocities, and the mainstream media is self-censoring it, isn't it WP:CENSOR to for us to leave it out too? --Nbauman (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that the mainstream media is censoring this story. It seems to me that this isn't a particularly notable story, and that's reflected by the lack of stories in the mainstream media. I'd have a similar analysis of some of the stories that are pushed by the right-leaning media such as FoxNews and Breitbart. This is largely moot now, however, since I support having a short mention of these stories in the "History" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reflections on overall balance
I recently discovered the WP:CRITICISM essay, which I very much like and which has led me to reflect on the overall balance of our ALEC article. This comment by is also relevant. First, WP:CSECTION (gotta love that label) and WP:CRITICISM validate the approach I took to reorganizing the "Critics" section (see my prior explanation here). More importantly, moving forward, I think we should pay attention to WP:PROMOTION, which states: Generally, criticisms within an article (other than a "Criticism of ..." article) should in total be well under half of the article, even if sourcing supports filling almost every line of the article with criticism. The minimum is that required by neutrality but the maximum should, in a neutral way, leave a majority of the article as not criticism. The section goes on to say that this rule of thumb has its exceptions depending on the subject matter. We have a particular challenge here because all of the articles that cover ALEC in depth contain a whole lot of very notable criticism. My gut feeling is that rather than deleting critical material outright we should work toward consolidating it. For example if three newspapers basically say the same thing about ALEC, instead of quoting all three we should paraphrase them all in one sentence with three citations. The goal wouldn't be to dilute these criticisms but to sharpen them by way of concision. Hopefully there would still be room for exemplary quotes.

I'm curious what other editors think about this issue, particularly and. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have never been a fan of criticism ghettos. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as you preserve the ideas of the criticism. If 3 news articles say the same thing, we can summarize them. But if 3 news articles each make a different point, we can't delete the 3 points and wrap it up with "Some people have criticized ALEC." The reader should get the information in the Wikipedia entry, and shouldn't have to click on the citation to get the information.


 * There does seem to be a lot of criticism about ALEC. They've adopted a lot of controversial positions, like Stand Your Ground laws and voter ID, and they've confronted many interest groups, who are complaining. They've even had conflicts of interest among their own members, since for example they have medical industry members but they promote gun ownership. In addition, they've supported a lot of this legislation without much disclosure, since many of their members said they weren't aware of those activities. So perhaps it's appropriate that half the entry should be criticism. It's a feature, not a bug. --Nbauman (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The need to balance criticism vs. non-critical content will inevitably butt up against the need to give full voice to the diversity of criticisms, and in my view the latter need is more important. Hence my suggestion that we only consolidate criticisms that are redundant. As for what ratio we end up with, I don't know, but I suspect given the available reliable material to draw from that we'll never get the criticism down to "well under half." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost none of the reliable sources are praising ALEC. Instead, they are criticizing the group. That is why this article should be more than half criticism. Binksternet (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:CRITICISM is about criticism vs. praise, it's more about criticism vs. non-criticism. A lot of these critical reliable sources have non-critical material. I agree that much of the critical material pops out as more more notable but I think we should make an effort to add the informative non-critical material as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the amount of criticism is out of balance. Some sections comment only on criticism while not even reflecting on the policy being criticized. Rebeccalutz (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Guardian quote in lede
The Guardian quote in the lead is taken from Rep. Pocan of Madison, WI. The quote used to be in this article, properly attributed to him. He made the (relatively) famous quip in Moyers' piece on ALEC. Moyers' transcript That was released in March of 2013, the quip was picked up widely. It appeared here. Several weeks ago (November) a reporter at The Guardian lifted the quote but did not attribute it. It now appears here as a Guardian quote. This is inappropriate. Wikipedia was likely the source of this Guardian phrasing. If we are going to use this quip we should properly attribute it. I am not comfortable with this article improperly using this. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ALEC has been described as "a dating agency" for Republican state legislators and corporations repeatedly in many WP:RSs. It should therefore definitely go into the entry. If you don't think that was the proper attribution, then you can change the attribution, but I don't think you should delete it, especially without getting consensus in talk before deleting it. --Nbauman (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted it. It's already in the article, properly attributed to the person who created the statement. Adding it again (while attributing it to a later writer) to the lede is improper, It is also UNDUE and POV. It is not a fact that ALEC is a dating agency. That is an opinion and a metaphor. It is properly in the article identified as the opinion of Pocan. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a ban on metaphors in lede sections. You think that readers will be misled into thinking that ALEC is an actual dating agency? &mdash; goethean 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I semi-reverted you (Capitalismojo) before I saw this thread. If one of these quotes is going to go it should be Pocan's, as he's not a reliable source like the Guardian. The Guardian may have adopted Pocan's position on the matter but that's not plagiarism. More significant than Pocan's view is that Pilkington, having reviewed the leaked documents and being at least an obstensibly neutral observer, has come to the same conclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it should be the Guardian. Pocan is a US Congressman. He is both notable and quotable. He is reliable for his own opinion. Moyers' is RS for the quote of Pocan. If there were to be a consensus that the creator of the quip should not be the quote we include, the Guardian quote should be put where the Pocan/Moyers ref is now. Putting it in the lede goes exactly against the efforts to improve the tone in this article that we have discussed recently here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hardly notable that members of Congress say controversial things. But it's very notable when respected journalists say the same things in news articles, especially when they have access to all sorts of leaked documents. In fact this quote is one of the one or two most notable quotes about ALEC period. And as I wrote in the discussion on criticism/balance, critical statements by reliable sources shouldn't be deleted outright; instead they should be paraphrased when redundant. This one isn't redundant; it's the sharpest criticism out there by an unreproachable source. I adamantly oppose its removal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If this Guardian ref stays in it should not be in the lede. It should be in the body. As you say, this is the sharpest criticism of the organization. Using it in the lede is WP:UNDUE. By the way, the Guardian is famously left-wing and is not "unreproachable". It is RS but it is no academic publisher. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming the Guardian does have a left-wing bias on U.S. domestic policy matters (I don't know), inclusion of this quote in the lead is far less UNDUE than including ALEC's quote, which is in the first paragraph rather than the third and definitely not from a reliable source. Without material like this the lead is way out of balance. By attributing the Guardian quote we enable the reader to make their own assessment about the Guardian's bias. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking, quality journalism, and accuracy. If we're going to contend otherwise, then I'd like to see some input from the reliable sources noticeboard. Since the Guardian is a reliable source, its news pieces are generally appropriate for use without in-text attribution. We're already going the extra mile by using in-text attribution here. MastCell Talk 21:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And as I said above, the Guardian is generally RS. I think their reporter's plagiarism is this case is abominable, and not just because it's my Congressman they stole the phrasing from. It doesn't belong in the lede either way. It doesn't improve it. It just pads it up. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of PR Watch
Certain material was added by, citing this PR Watch source, regarding the Cronon dispute as part of this discussion. reverted with the somewhat confusing comment: "not RS Lisa Graves E.D. of org admitted PRWatch a blog at WP:RSN while unsuccesfully defending RS status of their SourceWatch." Capitalismojo, can you please explain? If you're pointing to an archived RSN discussion can you please point to it? Also does WP:NEWSBLOG apply? (I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other yet.)
 * I think PR Watch is a WP:RS. I would revert and include the deleted material. I was reading PR Watch since before it was on the Internet. They are journalists with a political POV, and they publish books that would meet WP:RS. In that sense they're just as reliable as Fox News (which often has relatively objective stories in its news coverage). PR Watch was and is one of ALEC's biggest critics, as described here Center for Media and Democracy, so eliminating them as a WP:RS would be eliminating much of the critical information about ALEC. --Nbauman (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add the archived discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been significant discussions of advocacy orgs as RS at RSN as a quick check at the archives would show The general discussion is that publications of advocacy orgs are not RS or are reliable only for their own opinions. That is they are (if used at all) treated like op-ed opinion pieces. It is up to the editor who adds the information to show that it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this specific archived RSN discussion the discussion resolves around SourceWatch. The general discussion is that given that it is an open wiki it is not RS. Lisa the executive director of the organization enters the discussion to defend its reliability. Her defense is that, while it is an open wiki, they have staff to oversee the site. During that discussion she talks about PRWatch saying that SourceWatch articles had been accused of being unreliable blogs saying "which is not the case and in fact our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted, not SourceWatch" Her defense of sourcewatch was spirited but unconvinving to the consensus of editors. "LisaFromSourceWatch, the simple fact is that sourcewatch fails wp:rs as it is an open wiki, wikipedia also fails as a reliable source here, so it`s not just your place ". So Sourcewatch appears not RS and PRWatch less so. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. A statement made on a Wikipedia noticeboard about a different website (SourceWatch) saying "our PRWatch site is where our blogs are posted" is hardly dispositive about whether this source is in fact a blog, and doesn't speak to WP:NEWSBLOG. As far as I can tell this source was written by a professional journalist with editorial oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mary Bottari is a lot of good things. She lives in Madison as I do. She describes herself as a policy wonk. She is the deputy director of the CMD(SourceWatch/PRWatch). She is not and has never been a journalist, professional or otherwise. She has never pretended to be such. She is a progressive advocate and proud of it. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree that Bottari doesn't appear to be a professional journalist so NEWSBLOG doesn't apply. PR Watch (or at least Bottari's articles in PR Watch) doesn't appear to be reliable for its asserted facts, and calling Bottari a "journalist" was inaccurate. The next question is whether this article can be used as an opinion source per WP:RSOPINION. Your thoughts there please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus that SourceWatch is not a WP:RS at RSN. Some people say it is a RS and some people say it isn't. If you believe that SourceWatch is not a RS, you will read it and conclude that the general discussion is that it's not a RS. If you believe that SourceWatch is a RS, you will read it and conclude that the general discussion is that it is a RS. --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per RSN SourceWatch is open source and as such is not suitable. I would suggest that some of its ALEC material is reliable in that they have posted the original copies of ALEC bills/internal material. They are the public archive and primary source material provider. We don't use primary source materials here and so rely on RS papers to report on this trove of internal documents. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Mary is notable and this should be included and attributed to her. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean you support restoring the content you removed, but changing the Bottari's descriptor from "journalist" to something more accurate such as "CMD's deputy director"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely what I mean. See eventually Wikipedia consensus can work! Capitalismojo (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Conservative?
The first sentence was recently changed to remove the fact, cited by two reliable sources (NY Times and FCIR), that ALEC is composed of conservative legislators. The word "conservative" was removed with the comment: "Is every member of this group conservative? Doubt it. Removed irrelevant citations having nothing to do with cited material." The word "libertarian" was then added with a citation to The Daily Caller and the comment: "This group is routinely described as libertarian by independent, reliable sources."

These edits are inconsistent with sources cited in support of the sentence and sources cited elsewhere in the article. The two cited sources both say that ALEC consists of "conservative" state legislators. Including the Times source, which was removed because it was somehow "irrelevant." And I'm sure I could find more sources if necessary. The fact that a small number of members may not be conservative according to one editor's suspicions is not a proper basis for removal of well-sourced content. (See WP:V and WP:TRUTH.)

Meanwhile, the TDC source's reliability is questionable at best due to TDC's blatant bias (see RSN discussions here, here). Also, according to his LinkedIn page, the author, Michael Bastasch, interned at ALEC during college, served as a lobbying intern for the Heritage Foundation after graduation, and then started at TDC in 2012. He never previously worked as a professional journalist. The source is also an outlier. I can't recall a single other source calling ALEC a libertarian group... and as the edit history suggests, I've read a lot of articles about ALEC these last few months. The assertion that ALEC is "routinely" described as libertarian by reliable sources just isn't true. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Caller is an abysmal source, unusable here. ALEC is routinely noted for its social conservatism, measured in the context of USA politics. There should be no serious argument against that. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then cite "social conservatism" as a phrase to that source. Simplest and most proper course of action. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there is consensus among the sources that ALEC was engaged in social conservative causes decades ago but now focuses on economic conservative causes. One might call that libertarianism, but the sources aren't saying that. Perhaps it's possible to be economically conservative without being libertarian, I don't know. The bottom line is that the sources call ALEC a conservative organization made of conservative legislators. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree. It is described as conservative in reliable sources. We should use that descriptor. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)