Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council/Archive 6

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

I apologize for any personal remarks I made, and have edited my statements accordingly. And I wasn't equating ANYONE'S arguments with Nazi propaganda, intentionally or unintentionally. Your positive position on "banal" just brought to mind the phrase "the banality of evil". The Neo-Con Republicans, especially Karl Rove, have made a fine art out of distorting the truth by couching things people find reprehensible in misleading and innocuous terms, i.e. "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture, "rendition" instead of kidnapping. That's the reason I advocate using plain language versus trying to describe something in the most charitable terms possible. When actions are deceptive, they should be described as such. Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how "publicized" is deceptive, just how it's banal. You need to explain how the term doesn't accurately describe what liberal groups did in 2011 or how someone would be misled by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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


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

Peabody funding
We need to have a reliable secondary source stating the amount that Peabody funded ALEC before this information can make it into our article. Right now, as far as I can tell, we don't. The four cited sources: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change" - Fails verification. This (reliable) source only says that Peabody funded ALEC, not how much. Not noteworthy. Hundreds or thousands of corporations have funded ALEC over the years.
 * http://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/peabody-energy-discloses-extensive-payments-to-climate-denial-groups - This is a blog for the UCS, an advocacy organization. Not reliable per WP:BLOGS.
 * http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/07/12557/polluters - This is another advocacy group. It's not reliable per several discussions in the archives of this page and also at WP:RSN.
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/more-lies-from-alec-about_b_6149568.html - An advocacy blog piece written by a UCS staff member. Not reliable per WP:NEWSORG and WP:BLOGS.


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

Bloomberg
has taken issue with this Bloomberg, describing this statement in-text as unsupported by evidence and an opinion: "ALEC’s online library contains model bills that tighten voter identification requirements, making it harder for students, the elderly, and the poor to vote." Christian, can you please explain your position here? This seems to me to be a factual statement that was presumably checked by the Bloomberg editorial staff. This is a reliable source based on Bloomberg's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We shouldn't be casting doubt on reliably sourced facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those edits are editorializing. If we are using reliable, independent sources, then attribution is not needed and adding expressions of doubt is something that we should never do.- MrX 00:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now an IP is removing the same material. Coincidence? The IP claims that the material "has absolutely no proof in the Bloomberg article", however that objection is not grounded in policy. Sources that have a reputation for fact checking are considered reliable for Wikipedia's purpose.- MrX 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not a coincidence, but it doesn't matter because if either one continues to revert without participating in this discussion then they are edit warring and risk getting blocked. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mission statement in lead
The undue-inline tag has been sitting next to ALEC's mission statement in the first paragraph since last October. , would you care to explain why you think this sentence is non-neutral? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Explained here. No objection to removing the tag, since I seem to be the only one who thinks it's a problem.- MrX 21:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that discussion, thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * However, the statement itself, I removed as self-sourced and distinctly Orwellian. We have reliable independent third parties to describe what it actually does, so its PR version is really unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

ALEC's summary of its policies
has removed ALEC's one-sentence summary of its own policy platform. While the quote does contain some neutral language, I don't see it as unduly self-serving. We currently don't have a good, compact summary of ALEC's policies aside from this, and it's also helpful to understand how ALEC markets itself (with proper attribution of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ALEC's spin on its aims is necessarily aimed at boosting its credibility. We should instead rely on what reliable independent sources say about its aims. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit self-serving, yes, but unduly self-serving? Do we need to remove everything sourced to ALEC's website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Board of Scholars
has removed content describing ALEC's Board of Scholars and its membership since it is self-sourced. I generally try to avoid self-sourcing, but in this case ALEC's website is the most authoritative source. The Board of Scholars is noteworthy because the "scholars" are highly notable, and the board has been mentioned by various independent reliable sources (ex:, ). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is self-sourced. If this is a significant part of its operation, simply cite reliable independent sources that describe it. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The independent sources don't describe its full membership. But they do establish its noteworthiness. Please review WP:ABOUTSELF - self-sourced content is allowed, provided it meets the criteria. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kushnick HuffPo source
I do not think this source is reliable: You have to be careful with The Huffington Post, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the primary author, Bruce Kushnick, is the executive director of the New Networks Institute and advocates for open networks in opposition to ALEC. The contributing author, David Rosen, is a management consultant. Neither are journalists. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Virtually everybody writing about technology advocates for open networks. It's the default position. Whereas banning municipalities from operating public wi-fi is not only going against the trend, it's a pretty blatant piece of commercial self-interest. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So? The source still doesn't meet our reliable sources guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You say. And I disagree. So we could always ask at WP:RSN. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You disagree - so please explain why? Just because the writer agrees with "virtually everybody" who writes about technology? That has nothing to do with our reliability standard. I'll take this to RSN if necessary, how about putting up a real defense of the source first? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did. This is a qualified and mainstream source for the statements. Attribution would be OK, but exclusion is not, because this is exactly the kind of source you would expect to critique this kind of legislation. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok so it's expected, but how do we know it's reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

PR Watch redux
This is not a reliable source: Consensus both in the archives of this page and at WP:RSN establish that PR Watch, an arm of advocacy group CMD and an opponent of ALEC, is not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Being an opponent does not render them unreliable. PR Watch has a good reputation as a watcher of sneaky behaviour - it's not like some of the Orwellian-titled conservative "watch" organisations. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're disputing the consensus? I'm not saying consensus can't change; I'm just hoping to clarify. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing that an actual consensus exists in respect of this source for this content. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like a slightly disruptive response, but c'est la vie I suppose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Section "Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention"
I added the section named above, it had mistakes and it was reverted. I did manage to correct them, but it was then reverted based on WP:UNDUE. The user who reverted reached out at my talk page with a few comments and I answered them and asked for clarity on what he sees as violating WP:UNDUE. No response so far. I'll undo soon but I far prefer if an admin is available to look at the matter.

I also would like to put out the idea of having this section on its own page since there's no page about the specific issue (that I know of), its content goes beyond the scope of this page and its importance justifies a dedicated page.

Either way, I'd like to draw the attention of moderators here as this issue is highly political, on all sides. I was amazed at first to see that Wikipedia had nothing on the topic. Then again, the amount of power and money behind issues like these warrant, at least, your attention. Thank you. Calexit (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no moderators here, just participants seeking to achieve consensus. I have two concerns. One is that too much of the content is sourced to primary sources, when it should be sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources. If the subject matter is notable then such news coverage will be out there and guide what is undue and what is not. Second, your second version was sourced in part to In These Times, a longstanding socialist magazine. I'm having trouble determining if ITT meets our reliability standard. It would go a long way if you could find other reliable sources that cite ITT. Otherwise, find another source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The abuse of bolding itself tells me plenty. I'm opposed to Calexit adding any content here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Don't bite the newbies, now. Calexit, please ignore such attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no Chris why would you say such a thing? I'm so hurt, dissolving into despair as I write this. I think so much of your opinion of me as you can't imagine.
 * The following pages, ranging from controversial to the mundane, seem to be fine with having In These Times as a reference:
 * Waterboarding
 * Joseph_P._Kennedy_III
 * Penny_Pritzker
 * Mansplaining
 * David_Graeber
 * United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
 * 2003_in_literature


 * There are many more. And I guess since the second revert was to be measured only in nanoseconds (the power of love), you probably missed my addition of Slate magazine as a source.


 * Generally speaking, using primary sources for such things as merely listing the happening of events, which was what I used them for initially, is pretty much within WP policy. Calexit (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You're not going to obtain consensus for your edits that way. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and lay off the personal attacks and sarcasm please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dr. Fleischman for the personal advice regarding my behavior. As I believe that I have answered all concerns mentioned for the actual topic of this discussion, I am undoing the revert to repost the section. Calexit (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. I know you're new here but Wikipedia places the burden on the editor adding content. What you're adding is still WP:UNDUE and looks like a synthesis of sources. Perhaps you would do well to convince rather than demand. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please note that a DRN discussion has been opened here concerning this dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Negin HuffPo source
I do not think this source is reliable: This is another advocacy piece published by The Huffington Post. You have to be careful with HuffPo, as some of their articles are fact-checked news, and others are advocacy. In this case the author, Elliott Negin, is a writer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that fights against ALEC in the energy and environment sector. Also, the piece is written pretty blatantly as an advocacy piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I get it: you odn't like liberal sources. But being liberal doesn't make a source unreliable. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AGF and respond on the merits please. You're better than this. I didn't say the source was biased, I said the source was advocacy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Advocacy is fine, when discussing advocacy, which is what ALEC does. There is nothing wrong with citing a competing advocate. And is it really advocacy? Calling the right on lies is becoming fashionable. There are those that wish there had been a bit less tolerance for blatant untruth in politics recently. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might include me on that list, but it doesn't change Wikipedia standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a reliable source. It doesn't meet our WP:RS standards. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Outside the United States
, why did you remove this longstanding content? It was supported by a reliable independent source and adds an element to the article that would be of interest to non-U.S. readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that this text should be retained, and have restored it pending discussion, given that it is sourced and there is no question as to reliability of sources or BLP. This is six sentences toward the bottom of the article addressed international activities and impact. It's well-sourced and, as far as I can tell, presented in a straightforward way. I cannot imagine why an editor would conceive it to be undue or improper.Neutralitytalk 17:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a one-day story from years ago. It was 'possibly' worthy of including then, one could argue that this was the beginning of a continuing activity of ALEC. That clearly isn't true. This is entirely undue, titillation factor not withstanding. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Legislative Exchange Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217084813/http://www.spn.org/publications/spn-alec-a-model-relationship to http://www.spn.org/publications/spn-alec-a-model-relationship
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714063407/http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf to http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_prisonprivatization.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with this section?
It seems to have been improperly removed. -- Distrait cognizance (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:NPOV, to my mind. ThinkProgress is a partisan outfit so I wouldn't use them as a source. The subject should be ALEC, not a deal that they were connected to, which is all the second sentence is about. This is also an issue of recentism. The section who seems to be a crank. I wouldn't bother restoring it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The connection to ALEC is too tenuous, and the sourcing is poor as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)