Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) →Protests: comment |
209.6.69.227 (talk) |
||
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
::I always find it amusing that some people communicate so aggressively behind the relative anonymity of the web when they wouldn't do so in real life. My excitable IP friend's comments below have conflated the issue of the protests with the release of the 800+ documents, for reasons best known to himself. He might like to observe that I posted about the two matters in two separate sections. If anyone else would like to comment specifically about my view that <u>one bullet point for every 80+ documents is hardly excessive</u>, I'd be pleased to hear that. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
::I always find it amusing that some people communicate so aggressively behind the relative anonymity of the web when they wouldn't do so in real life. My excitable IP friend's comments below have conflated the issue of the protests with the release of the 800+ documents, for reasons best known to himself. He might like to observe that I posted about the two matters in two separate sections. If anyone else would like to comment specifically about my view that <u>one bullet point for every 80+ documents is hardly excessive</u>, I'd be pleased to hear that. – <font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
===The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical === |
|||
::Dear Ohio. WP is NOT a noticeboard or a column ("Our readers"? there is a problem if you regard WP as a place for YOUR readers), but an encyclopedia. You have made no logical argument for inclusion of the table of contents of a magazine issue. The average legal filing has a boxful (lets say a thousand) documents in it. If the filing is notable, it is notable on merits, not volume of paper. The leak is the leak, a singular event (and am already giving wide latitude; it isn't TECHNICALLY a controversy, either), most notable in that it provides a RESOURCE hitherto unavailable. Good. A Singular event, a single magazine issue, notable, but not to be reproduced on WP, but summarized. If you now want to USE this resource to expand the History of ALEC, fine. --[[Special:Contributions/209.6.69.227|209.6.69.227]] ([[User talk:209.6.69.227|talk]]) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Dear Ohio. WP is NOT a noticeboard or a column ("Our readers"? there is a problem if you regard WP as a place for YOUR readers), but an encyclopedia. You have made no logical argument for inclusion of the table of contents of a magazine issue. The average legal filing has a boxful (lets say a thousand) documents in it. If the filing is notable, it is notable on merits, not volume of paper. The leak is the leak, a singular event (and am already giving wide latitude; it isn't TECHNICALLY a controversy, either), most notable in that it provides a RESOURCE hitherto unavailable. Good. A Singular event, a single magazine issue, notable, but not to be reproduced on WP, but summarized. If you now want to USE this resource to expand the History of ALEC, fine. --[[Special:Contributions/209.6.69.227|209.6.69.227]] ([[User talk:209.6.69.227|talk]]) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:53, 9 May 2012
United States: District of Columbia Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Organizations Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Conservatism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
few Sources, pre-2010
Sources needed
We need citations for the political breakdown of ALEC membership, otherwise it's completely unsupported. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
See http://www.alecwatch.org/ for information on the political breakdown of the ALEC membership, which is predominantly Republican. It has been disheartening to see how much this page has been edited -- by political operatives and/or ALEC's staff -- to remove important information about the group which it may not want the world to know.
- There's clearly been an attempt to whitewash the article. I've restored the deleted sourced content. FeloniousMonk 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
One source doesn't make something true
The only source that is used on this page is from ALEC Watch which is outdated and inaccurate. A lot of comments talk about how ALEC is made up of mostly Republicans, which is somewhat true (about 2/3 GOP to 1/3 Democrat.) But if fails to mention that ALEC's National Chair is a Democrat, in addition to the last national chair also being a Democrat. Any college student or professional that uses ONE citation on a research article would be laughed at and discredited on the spot. Do more research and get over the fact that there is more positive press about ALEC than negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonnyboy1544 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
This page also cite's ALEC's own website... making two citations. If you think that it is important to mention that ALEC's chair is a Dem, then put in the article. --Cjs56 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Alecwatch
The website www.alecwatch.org shows no signs of having been updated since 2002. Is it still a relevant link in this article? Is there a better/more current link available to an opposition position?
This article looks terrible
1) 2 of the 4 sources are from highly partisan sites. We should look for more neutral sources.
2) The article is poorly organized. When I figure out how to make tables and what not I will fix this asap
3) Why is global warming the only issue they advocate on discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Article Reads Like an Ad
Since IP user 207.155.218.26 began making edits a few days ago, ALEC's page looks more like an advertisement for the organization than an unbiased, factual analysis of its activities. Almost every new source, for example, links directly to the ALEC website. For the sake of objectivity, I think changes need to be made. --Williston K (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. A rewrite is definitely in order. Yilloslime TC 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes. It is still a work in progress, but I think it is better than what existed before. --Williston K (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
7/5/07 - Political philosophy and composition
I went to Alec's webiste today [1] and saw the word "conservative" but never saw the word "Jeffersonian." I also saw the pictures of five Republicans and no Democrats or independents. In addition to the pictures of five Republicans I saw the names of two Republicans, but no Democrats or Independents. Ergo, the term "conservative" is more appropriate than Jeffersonian (which may be on the website, but not on the mainpage or the "about" page) and it is fair to say that it is primarily composed of Republicans as there is NO evidence whatsoever from their website that they have a single member that is not a Republican. So you can stop arguing that Ocenia has always been at war with Eastasia or whatever it is that some of you have been arguing on this page; it's tough to tell as it has been un-adulterated kool-aid drinking propagandic drivel with no basis in reality. I speak specifically to IPs 12.168.68.11 and 76.189.35.30. Unless you can come up with some justification to for your newspeak, please stop vandalizing this article. --Cjs56 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- What in the world are you talking about? None of the recent edits are "propagandic" or vandalism and I resent the implication that the edits are being made in bad faith. They don't espouse an opinion either way on the organization, its members or its goals. I am trying very hard to remain calm and to retain the assumption of good faith in the face of your adversarial comments. I don't know if you have an agenda here but I will tell you bluntly that I do not other than to make sure that the article is as factual and complete as we can make it. So let's break the edits down specifically:
- Political philosophy - Jeffersonian vs Conservative
If you look at their descriptions of their political philosophy (which are documented on their website), it lines up much more closely with the Wikipedia description of Jeffersonian political philosophy than with the Wikipedia article on Conservatism. I concede that most Americans today consider "Jeffersonian" to be a subset of "conservative". That has not always been the case even in the US and is not the case in most other countries. (In most cultures, a Jeffersonian philosophy is considered radically liberal.) The truth is that they really are very different political philosophies. See the Nolan Chart for one take on the difference.
In my opinion, ALEC uses the word "conservative" on the front page of their website because everyone thinks they know what "conservative" means but almost nobody would recognize "Jeffersonian". They are writing to a mass audience. We at Wikipedia have advantages in the ability to hyperlink and cross-connect to more precise descriptions. We are not limited to just "liberal" vs. "conservative".
So, after reading their webpage and our political articles, what evidence do you have that their political philosophy is not Jeffersonian and that Conservatism is the better link? Do you have anything other than the opinion expressed in your edit summary that you consider them "fascist"? - Membership includes "private sector advocates"
I have no idea why you keep reverting that edit. It's documented both on their website and on the opposition blog alecwatch.org. Alecwatch would have you believe that it's a strong negative - that it's a priori evidence of special interest status. In my opinion, it is neither positive or negative but I don't know how you can conclude that adding that clause creates a favorable bias to the article. May we assume that part of the revert was an oversight? - Membership is "composed primarily of Republicans"
As has already been explained in the edit summary, "primarily" is significantly higher than "mostly" but less than "exclusively". That assertion of membership has never been sourced. On the other hand, both your edit summary and the external sources agree that the organization's membership is "bipartisan". I find the description of the organization's membership as "bipartisan" and "primarily Republican" to be incompatible and confusing. The insistence on that clause creates an appearance of bias without any underlying basis to substantiate the claim. The fact that ALEC currently highlights a few Republican members on their webpage is weak evidence for an assertion that their membership is "primarily Republican" and, to the extent that we make any inferences, must be balanced against what is known about their leadership. Their page about their Executive Board of Directors shows
National Chair - Dolores Mertz (D)
First Vice Chair - Steve Faris (D)
Second Vice Chair - L Patrick Engel (was D until 2006 when he switched to R)
It's not until you get down to Treasurer that you get to the first long-term Republican on their Executive Board. An organization whose top two leaders are Democratic can't plausibly be described as "primarily Republican" unless we have evidence to support that claim. So again, do you have anything sourcable on current membership statistics?
Note: I'm not saying that they are predominantly Democratic either. I'm saying that we don't know because the organization does not choose to publish their membership lists (or if they do, I haven't been able to find them). Until we do know, the clause needs to be removed as unsourced.
- Political philosophy - Jeffersonian vs Conservative
- I hope that explains the edits a little better and that we can stick to observable facts as we edit this article. 12.168.68.11 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
First, I deleted the phrase "public sector advocates" in error. I think it belongs in the article. Also, in regard to the term "primarily Republican", you win. However, your argument that they only use the term Conservative instead of Jeffersonian is because it is more accessible is flawed. ALEC is not an organization which appeals to the general population. Instead it appeals to legislators and "private sector advocates" who are, theoretically, more politically saavy and would comprehend the difference. If they were Jeffersonian, they would say it. --Cjs56 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for making those changes. I still disagree about "jeffersonian" but want to wait for others to join in the debate.
In the meantime, I don't think that a press release about alumni from 2002 is necessarily relevant today. In 2002, the House and Senate were majority-held by Republicans. Since their alumni list only showed current officeholders, you'd expect a majority of Republicans regardless of the proportions within their membership. Any number of factors could have influenced the inclusion of a member on that list. By presenting the alumni list as indicative, you've introduced a selection-bias into the analysis. I also don't know that they deliberately keep the membership lists "secret" - it may just be that we haven't asked or looked in the right place yet. I would prefer that we remove that section until we have something more definitive. 12.168.68.11 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The press release from 2002 is definitely relevant today. If we were quibbling over the term "majority" when the 2002 numbers were 11 to 10 or some similar proportion, I would cede the point immediately. However, a ratio of something like 20:1 is significant, and I doubt that the numbers would change so much in five years that they would enter "quibbling" territory. My post's here may be a bit sporadic and terse in the near future, as I am going to be very very busy in the near future in my real life. --Cjs56 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Incoherent
What does this sentence mean?
"This resulted in the issuing of a FOIA request by the Wisconsin Republican Party against Cronon; Paul Krugman and the American Historical Association defended Cronon's right to conduct public political research, and decried the apparent attempt at intimidation."
"Issuing a FOIA request ... against Cronon"? Wouldn't an FOIA request be a request FOR something? For what? What information was being requested? Why? Why is it bad to request information? Why would Cronon want to conceal information?
Also - might be a little more readable by replacing the semicolon with a period.
The topic of this entry is interesting. The quality of the writing is totally discrediting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- So why not go ahead and reword it? I've done so. Rostz (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Unbalanced Cronon entry
Recent addition regarding Cronon is undue weight, and borders on a coatrack. Hillman Award is wholly off-topic.– Lionel (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Don't see why the Hillman award thing is in the article at all, but Cronon is quite relevant, since he seems to have undergone retaliatory intimidation by ALEC allies. AnonMoos (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The connection between Cronon, ALEC, and the subsequent attempts to obtain Cronon's email are covered extensively by independent, reliable sources, making some mention of the incident clearly appropriate (although it makes sense to limit coverage so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire article). In addition to the sources currently in the article (e.g. the New York Times opinion piece by Paul Krugman), sources include:
- Sulzberger, A.G. (March 26, 2011). "Wisconsin Professor's E-Mails Are Target of G.O.P. Records Request". New York Times. (News)
- Eaton, Sabrina (April 3, 2011). "Conservative group denies it masterminded drive to restrict public employee unions". Cleveland Plain Dealer. (News)
- Grafton, Anthony (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin: The Cronon Affair". New Yorker. (News)
- Lederman, Doug (March 28, 2011). "Wisconsin Gets Weirder". Inside Higher Ed.
- "A Shabby Crusade in Wisconsin". New York Times. March 25, 2011. (Editorial)
- Fallows, James (March 25, 2011). "'Have You No Sense of Decency?' The Wm. Cronon Story". Atlantic Monthly. (Opinion)
- Shea, Christopher (March 28, 2011). "William Cronon vs. Wisconsin Republicans". Wall Street Journal.
- Leonard, Andrew (March 25, 2011). "Wisconsin's most dangerous professor". Salon.com.
- Scholtz, Gregory (March 28, 2011). "Letter to the Chancellor, University of Wisconsin" (PDF). American Association of University Professors.
- The connection between Cronon, ALEC, and the subsequent attempts to obtain Cronon's email are covered extensively by independent, reliable sources, making some mention of the incident clearly appropriate (although it makes sense to limit coverage so that it doesn't overwhelm the entire article). In addition to the sources currently in the article (e.g. the New York Times opinion piece by Paul Krugman), sources include:
- Other general sources, not dealing specifically with Cronon but potentially useful for the article, include:
- Greenhouse, Steven (January 3, 2011). "Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions". New York Times.
- Peterka, Amanda (April 4, 2011). "Conservative Group Drafts, Promotes Anti-EPA Bills in State Legislatures". New York Times.
- Marshall, Christa (April 1, 2011). "State Legislatures Pile Onto Anti-EPA Climate Rule Effort". New York Times.
- Kirkpatrick, David (December 28, 2009). "Health Lobby Takes Fight to the States". New York Times.
- Lee, Jennifer (May 28, 2003). "Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming". New York Times.
- Herszenhorn, David (March 22, 2010). "Health Vote Is Done, but Partisan Debate Rages On". New York Times.
{{cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
- Other general sources, not dealing specifically with Cronon but potentially useful for the article, include:
- The article, at present, is fairly poorly sourced and heavily reliant on primary sources directly affiliated with ALEC. In order to improve the article, I'd welcome and/or challenge its regular editors to update it by incorporating some or all of the above sources. (I've even formatted them for easy incorporation). If no one steps up, I'll probably return to work on it at some point. MastCell Talk 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, yes, Cronon did blog (and has interesting things to say about ALEC), but the FOI request was basically part of the crackdown on PUBLIC employees using STATE resources to do POLITICAL lobbying. The State Public Employees Unions were the primary parties to the fight, and use of Government facilities for politics or lobbying is illegal. The FOI did NOT go after his personal email or home computer. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cronon did not do any "lobbying" in the sense of seeking to influence legislators, etc. -- he merely published the results of his research. And many academic employees of universities often use their university e-mail accounts for personal e-mails, and this is often formally allowed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Of course he did, and he sent volumes of emails to legislators and activists lobbying against the budget cuts. Employees of private universities can do what they want, depending on university policy; employees of PUBLIC Universities are PUBLIC employees, and are subject to laws concerning PUBLIC employees. I know that may seem odd from the perspective of academic freedom, but it is pretty much a universal difference. Perfectly happy with the article stating that he wrote an opinion piece on ALEC, that he was accused of using public property for political purposes, and the columns gained notoriety, since they may have (unlike the volumes of email properly investigated) fallen into a grey area of lobbying law.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
To get back to the point. There is a problem with the way this is written. The Controversy between the Professor (and State Employee) and the State of Wisconsin (his employer) is the major one. ALEC is tangentially related, basically, because his launch of an anti-ALEC website unrelated to his academic research (not sure if it is hosted by the State or not - will try to check) provoked the heavy-handed response. Again, it is a bit tangential, and while it may be OK to leave it as a "Controversy", should be limited to how ALEC was involved. Cronon's anti-ALEC content isn't really part of the controversy AS CONTENT; if it is cited in some other place discussing policy in a NPOV way, fine. Otherwise it is definitely WP:COATRACK--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, I think the controversy and its relevance to ALEC are quite clear via the sources listed above. ALEC worked behind the scenes to aid Wisconsin Republicans' efforts to destroy public-employee unions; Cronon blogged about ALEC's involvement; and then the Republicans whom ALEC had collaborated with demanded Cronon's emails, in what many viewed as retaliatory intimidation and an infringement of academic freedom. That's in the sources, and it's not "tangentially" related to ALEC - ALEC is at the center of it. MastCell Talk 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The FOI request is the controversy. ALEC did not file the FOI request. ALEC's name came up as a resource for the bill, and the subject of the column. They still did not issue the FOI or have anything to do with it. That is called a tangetial involvement. I also find it a little hypocritical of editors to wail about application of Wisconsin's very sweeping open documents law when it clearly applies to someone you like(which is called transparency - to prevent Government secrecy, a bad thing) who is a public employee, but DEMAND open access to internal processes of a PRIVATE organization you don't like (which is NOT called transparency, but invasion of privacy)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
resource
Inside the ALEC Dating Service by Mark Pocan, October 2011 issue in The Progressive. 99.109.126.73 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
potential resource
The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy by John Nichols on December 9, 2011 - 8:44am ET, excerpt ...
Billionaire brothers Charles and David H. Koch finally got their way in 2011. After their decades of funding the American Legislative Exchange Council, the collaboration between multinational corporations and conservative state legislators, the project began finally to yield the intended result. For the first time in decades, the United States saw a steady dismantling of the laws, regulations, programs and practices put in place to make real the promise of American democracy. That is why, on Saturday, civil rights groups and their allies will rally outside the New York headquarters of the Koch brothers to begin a march for the renewal of voting rights in America.
See Political activities of the Koch family, 99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
"Stand your ground" law
Goethian's edit should be allowed to stand, indeed expanded, not reverted. I just heard of this group for the first time on a CNN broadcast which credited them for the "Stand your ground" law as well as voter identification laws. It is obvious that we should be able to describe the legislation proposed by a group whose purpose is to propose legislation - indeed, I'd like to see a breakdown of all their efforts. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- This column by Krugman might be useful in expanding it.
- Lobbyists, Guns and Money By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: March 25, 2012
- Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged).
- --Nbauman (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Neither source says that ALEC had anything to do with the Martin incident. Thus it isn't relevant. – Lionel (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- As usual, you are thrice-wrong. Wrong on the
factssource, wrong on policy, and against consensus. ALEC absolutely did have something to do with Martin's (they drafted the law which gave his killer cover), and the source surely does link them, in the headline and in the article body. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)- Are you sure you wanna go there? The law is extremely popular in FL (except of course for bussed in lefties) and has resulted in a dramatic drop in crime. When the Martin thing dies down all that will be left in the article is how effective this law is.– Lionel (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then ALEC and its supporters such as yourself should be very proud of this law and its effects as documented by the news media and summarized by my edit. Instead, you go against the
factssource, against policy, and against talk page consensus. — goethean ॐ 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Then ALEC and its supporters such as yourself should be very proud of this law and its effects as documented by the news media and summarized by my edit. Instead, you go against the
- Are you sure you wanna go there? The law is extremely popular in FL (except of course for bussed in lefties) and has resulted in a dramatic drop in crime. When the Martin thing dies down all that will be left in the article is how effective this law is.– Lionel (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- As usual, you are thrice-wrong. Wrong on the
- Neither source says that ALEC had anything to do with the Martin incident. Thus it isn't relevant. – Lionel (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- But continuing your off-topic political commentary, I'm sure that this incident will be wonderful for Florida's tourism industry. Nothing is more attractive than racist police departments mopping blood off the sidewalks and declining to prosecute murderers. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking news: Zimmerman was attacked. He had a broken nose and a gash on the back of his head. The lone witness stated that Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was the aggressor. The voice on the phone call, screaming for help, was Zimmerman's, not Martin's. Let me reiterate: the law in FL has resulted in a substantial drop in crime and is very popular.
That said, I think this falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: i.e. events are unfolding too quickly to write encyclopedic content. However, if you want to keep Martin in, per WP:DUE we must include sourced police statements that this incident is a proper application of the law, that this was a case of self-defense, that this was justifiable homicide, and that the law is working as intended. – Lionel (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ignoring your continued off-topic inanity for now, the cited source explains the (quite obvious) relevance of ALEC to the Martin case. — goethean ॐ 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The idea that Stand-Your-Ground laws have resulted in a drop in crime is "half-true" at best, although even that is charitable. Crime rates were declining for the 5 years before Florida's law was implemented in 2005, and have continued to decline at the same rate since its implementation. The law had no discernible effect on the trajectory of the crime rate. Assigning credit to the law for a decline which started 5 years before its enactment is politically expedient, if not logical, I suppose. One could argue, with just as much validity, that Hurricane Katrina, the White Sox World Series sweep, or any other 2005 event led to a "substantial drop in crime".
And of course, sadly and presciently, in 2007 the National District Attorneys Association - hardly a bunch of soft-on-crime bleeding hearts - raised the concern that "Stand Your Ground" laws were likely to lead to deadly force being used in situations which otherwise would not have escalated, and that such laws would have "a disproportionately negative effect on minorities, persons from lower socioeconomic status, and young adults/juveniles." MastCell Talk 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The idea that Stand-Your-Ground laws have resulted in a drop in crime is "half-true" at best, although even that is charitable. Crime rates were declining for the 5 years before Florida's law was implemented in 2005, and have continued to decline at the same rate since its implementation. The law had no discernible effect on the trajectory of the crime rate. Assigning credit to the law for a decline which started 5 years before its enactment is politically expedient, if not logical, I suppose. One could argue, with just as much validity, that Hurricane Katrina, the White Sox World Series sweep, or any other 2005 event led to a "substantial drop in crime".
- Ignoring your continued off-topic inanity for now, the cited source explains the (quite obvious) relevance of ALEC to the Martin case. — goethean ॐ 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Breaking news: Zimmerman was attacked. He had a broken nose and a gash on the back of his head. The lone witness stated that Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was the aggressor. The voice on the phone call, screaming for help, was Zimmerman's, not Martin's. Let me reiterate: the law in FL has resulted in a substantial drop in crime and is very popular.
- But continuing your off-topic political commentary, I'm sure that this incident will be wonderful for Florida's tourism industry. Nothing is more attractive than racist police departments mopping blood off the sidewalks and declining to prosecute murderers. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin is leaning toward downplaying the Stand Your Ground/Zimmerman connection. Zimmerman's attorney is not going to use SYG as a defense. It appears the SYG controversy was a manufacture of the media. If we leave Zimmerman in we need to indicate that the connection is a contrivance of the media in Budapest, Romania. – Lionel (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not the media erred in connecting SYG with the Martin shooting is not the point, it is now rightly or wrongly the subject of greater public debate as a result. Hence, it is a matter of public interest now that ALEC played a role in the crafting of the legislation.137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- This section contains embedded violations of WP:BLP in regard Zimmerman. I don't see any way to redact it to remove the violations, so, if there is no objection, I'll hide this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, Talking Points Memo is not a reliable source. As that provides the only evidence presented that the SYG law is related to ALEC, it must go until a reliable source can be presented. The fact that the SYG law has nothing to do with either Zimmerman's defense nor the failure to arrest, is not exactly relevant to inclusion, as the media seems to have jumped on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources linking "Stand Your Ground" laws to ALEC, besides Talking Points Memo. There's the New York Times ("Despite its generally low profile, ALEC has drawn scrutiny recently for promoting gun rights policies like the Stand Your Ground law at the center of the Trayvon Martin shooting case in Florida..."). Separately, the Times describes ALEC as "an influential conservative policy group that came under attack after the Trayvon Martin shooting for pushing Stand Your Ground gun laws nationwide".
The relevance is obvious; as the Times articles point out, the outcry over ALEC's advocacy of these laws in the context of the Martin shooting led to an exodus of member corporations from ALEC, and a resulting decision to narrow ALEC's focus.
And yes, the "Stand Your Ground" law has everything to do with Zimmerman's defense; see the Associated Press (via FoxNews): "Zimmerman says he killed Martin in self-defense, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives broad legal protection to anyone who says they used deadly force because they feared death or great bodily harm." MastCell Talk 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was in the process of re-commenting; I just removed Talking Points Memo entirely, as its connection is not significant. And, as a law student, I should point out that the if Zimmerman broke off pursuit, and was returning to his car, then there is no law, proposed or current, which would mean that he would not be entitled to shoot Martin if Zimmerman was being attacked "with deadly force" and could not, "with substantial certainty", retreat to a place of safety, and had no other alternative than to use deadly force. The "SYG" law only removes the duty to retreat, which would not have been physically possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- AP is wrong. Any self-defense statute, including that before the SYG law was passed, would have protected Zimmerman. It seems to be uninformed "legal" commentators who distinguish between Florida's self-defense statute, and that of other states, when the difference would make no difference. If Zimmerman were still in pursuit of Martin, it would have made a difference, but there is no claim being made that that was the case. I suspect bias by the news media.
- However, whether they are wrong or not, it's still reported, and the fact that the SYG has nothing to do with Zimmerman is irrelevant to whether it should be included in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your assertion that Talking Points Memo is unreliable is based on what? — goethean ॐ 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's a partisan website, albeit a relatively respectable one. I'm not going to say it's categorically verboten as a source, but we should definitely try to find better sources when possible. MastCell Talk 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your assertion that Talking Points Memo is unreliable is based on what? — goethean ॐ 22:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources linking "Stand Your Ground" laws to ALEC, besides Talking Points Memo. There's the New York Times ("Despite its generally low profile, ALEC has drawn scrutiny recently for promoting gun rights policies like the Stand Your Ground law at the center of the Trayvon Martin shooting case in Florida..."). Separately, the Times describes ALEC as "an influential conservative policy group that came under attack after the Trayvon Martin shooting for pushing Stand Your Ground gun laws nationwide".
If "Stand your Ground" is being cited as a "Controversy", then a definition of WHAT the controversy IS is needed. Obviously, the law was extensively and openly debated (no controversy), isn't new (no controversy), was passed by near unanimous (no controversy), BIPARTISAN (no controversy) majorities, and is OVERWHELMINGLY popular in Florida (no controversy). It has been on the books for 7 years. The fact that it has been in the news, and being re-examined by the national press is fine to include, but you also have to include what it is NOT, namely controversial in the usual sense. If you say there is a "Controversy", then you have to say what that controversy IS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
See also
( Late-edit clarification: The comments in this section evidently pertain to Lionel's restoration of a "see also" link to National Women's Party followed by Goethean's removal thereof, both occurring on 18 April 2012. )
WP:OR does not apply to See alsos. WP:OR governs content in the body, and lead; the See also is a section in the appendix. See WP:LAY. The applicable policy is WP:SEEALSO.
- Entries do not have to be readily apparent. (If not readily apparent the entry should be annotated.)
- The links do not have to be directly related
- Links that are peripherally relevant are helpful
The link in See also passes the relevant policy WP:SEEALSO. If there are no objections I'll restore it.– Lionel (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fantastic, then I'm sure that you will agree to my adding a "see also" link to Corporatism. — goethean ॐ 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I vote against the link to National Women's Party. I doubt someone reading about ALEC would be interested in NWP. Seems like a case of "Oh yeah? Well you liberals do it too!" But, come to think of it, I would vote for links to both NWP & Corporatism. (Lionel, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking your comment.) Davemck (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. After reading ALEC one of the first questions which occurred to me was were there any other orgs with a similar mission. It was a pain to find one. The See also makes it easier for the next person. Is there a policy which prohibits adding an org to a See-also with an opposing ideology? If there is such a policy, there are a few thousand articles which need to be brought into compliaince with this policy. We'll start with removing American Civil Rights Union from ACLU, and work our way to Z. I don't see any connection between ALEC and corporatism, not even a "peripheral" one. – Lionel (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I vote against the link to National Women's Party. I doubt someone reading about ALEC would be interested in NWP. Seems like a case of "Oh yeah? Well you liberals do it too!" But, come to think of it, I would vote for links to both NWP & Corporatism. (Lionel, I hope you don't mind my wikilinking your comment.) Davemck (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Lionel, I must also !vote to decline a "see also" link to the National Women's Party article. I appreciate editors who really dig into investigating a topic, and I'm wholly sympathetic to the desire for balance that I infer from your wish to include the link. But I must also respectfully observe that I think wp:nor actually does apply in the particular instance under discussion here. Or to say the same thing slightly differently, my own "editorial judgement and common sense" tells me that your association of ALEC with the National Women's Party article via a see also link is too great a "reach" by half, so great a reach, as I see it, that the attempt falls foul of the purpose of wp:nor if not necessarily of its explicit wording. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Additional public radio source
Hi, all. I arrived at this page after I heard a 19 April 2012 program on public radio about ALEC, and then became curious to learn more. The program was very informative and also seemed reasonably well-balanced re POV: The producers asked ALEC for an offical representative to appear on the program, the organization declined, so the producers found someone willing to speak very persuasively in its favour, anyway. It's 50 minutes long.
I may or may not stop back in to add content based on the program at some point, but this isn't really my bailiwick, and I'd be just as pleased if anyone else were to go ahead and do so. The well-formed citation below can be copypasted into the article by anyone who wants to add content based on it. I should note, however, that the URL and LAYSUMMARY fields will likely change almost immediately, when the target rolls off to the producer's archive pages. Search for the program here when the link breaks for that reason.
The KCRW description page for the program includes a brief text description that I linked to via the LAYSUMMARY field for the cite. It's not really a lay summary, as much as it is the only (written) summary, but the field seemed reasonable to use for that purpose, since theres no other text description. That description, says, in part: "Florida and 24 other states have adopted 'Stand Your Ground' laws thanks to a shadowy organization of state legislators and lobbyists. We hear the pros and cons of the group called ALEC." (emphasis added) That same page also currently displays an image ( unfortunately non-free, from Getty Images, although a fair-use rationale might be attempted by those who know about such things ) of a group or crowd holding up "We are Trayvon Martin" signs in a protest rally outside ALEC's headquarters. Accompanying image description here, in hidden text.
The program could be usefully cited in this article's section about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which could use more sources. There was a fair bit of discussion in the program about how that law became so ubiquitous throughout the states. ALEC is said, in the program, to have been a motive force behind that proliferation.
I'll also note that the story explicitly states that 104 (iirc) of the 105 (iirc) people who hold governance or leadership roles in the organization are Republicans, and that few of its members are Democrats. A comparison is also made to a different group, a publicly funded organization whose name I do not now recall, which also facilitates collaboration among state legislative members, but mostly on best practices for procedural/infrastructure matters. In that organization, the program said, leadership positions alternate between the two political parties every other year. The very strong implication, iirc, seemed to be that that organization was transparent and democratic - note small "d" - by comparison to ALEC.
The program also addresses ALEC's efforts at changing voter registration laws, and includes a fair bit of discussion about how those efforts disproportionately exclude minorities from voting. Besides the host, Warren Olney, the show includes a member of ALEC (speaking unofficially), a woman who runs the "ALEC EXPOSED" website at alecexposed.com, and an African-American man who has successfully asked a number of corporations - seven, as I recall - that have both supported ALEC and made significant PR overtures to African-Americans, to ask those corporations to quit ALEC because of its efforts, as he sees it, to disenfranchise minority voters.
Oh; the program also talks about ALECs and (iirc) Corrections Corporation of America's (CCA) push to privatise prisons in the United States, and the model legislation they jointly authored that would ensure that contracts with CCA prisons would have an "occupancy rate" no lower than 95%. I'd have to listen to the program again to be sure I have those details exactly right, however, although I am confident in the 95% minimum occupancy number, at least.
In all, the program appears to offer a pretty rich resource for this article: An almost hour-long reliable-source discussion about the organization. My only cavil is that there doesn't seem to be a transcript of the program available, only the audio recording via streaming, podcast, or mp3 download. Here's some otherwise meaningless text to provide an end-of-post home for the cite.[1]
- ^ Host: Warren Olney (19 April 2012). "The American Legislative Exchange Council: Who Is ALEC?". To the Point. Public Radio International. KCRW. Retrieved 19 April 2012.
{{cite episode}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|transcripturl=
(help); Unknown parameter|city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|laysummary=
ignored (help)
category
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Controversy" section - WP is NOT for "propaganda, advertising and showcasing"
Most of what has been put in this section is not encyclopedic in nature, it is self-promotion, and use of Wikipedia as a noticeboard for advocacy campaigns.
For instance, the fact that x____ did an article on ALEC is not notable in and of itself, and NOT a controversy. A controversy is incident or issue-based. The former is promotion.
Protests. Not particularly notable. No or almost no reliable sources, no major coverage, no discussion of issues, and the one marginally reliable source, the Cincinnati alternative newspaper gave a VERY generous estimate of attendance, and had to note that most attendees were "overly suspicious and not that well-informed". This is coming from a sympathetic but independent source. There is a REASON no reliable news sources covered them. They are NOT notable. No doubt whatsoever they happened, and a preliminary google search yields at least 20-30 well-funded online campaigns to get people to go to these. By my count, that means for each social media or online advocacy campaign, there was a yield of 5 actual people. Not impressed. Prove me wrong or it should be blanked.
Publication of internal docs. OK, agree; this is interesting. Definitely worthy of an entry, but ONE. Publishing that these were leaked, fine, that they are made easily (actually not so much) accessible and are a tool to find out what ALEC is doing (again, not so much, but letting slide), fine. Publishing the docs, lists, and that there was a special edition of commentary, also fine. Publishing them and RE-PUBLISHING and then RE-POSTING every section, opinion piece, sub-list, without any attempt at NPOV balance; totally out of line.
Boycott campaign. Fine to include, but NPOV requires disclosure of WHO Color of Change is, what both sides of the issues they are complaining about are, and both support AND criticism of the boycott. That is the essence of what NPOV is. Making the entry a poster board for every micro-announcement from involved parties on the "progress" or their pet project is the very definition of what Wikipedia IS NOT. Color of Change (pro/con), issues raised (pro/con), boycott campaign (pro/con) and result (pro/con IN SUMMARY, NOT DETAIL). THAT is the structure for an NPOV WP controversy entry. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I came here from a request at COIN. I don't see a conflict of interest. However, the article has several problems. For example:
- Controversies section - Severing controversies of the ALEC from ALEC's timeline history creates a NPOV imbalances that does not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. Also, as 209.6.69.227 points out above, the article is about ALEC, and information in the article needs to be about ALEC. The information about others can be put in articles about those others. For example, "National Public Radio, NPR, has aired several programs about ALEC and its influence in the drafting of legislation, most dealing with allegations of lack of transparency" would belong in the NPR article (if it belonged anywhere at all) or in an article about what radio stations air. The info published about ALEC by NPR might belong in this article, but NPR's own actions do not. I suggest taking all the info in the controversies section and moving it into the history section in a chronological order. Then, take a look at what you have and remove the things that are not relevant to ALEC or that do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC.
- Publications section - The information in the publications section is not publications but instead describes actions/events of ALEC. Such information belongs in the history section in chronological order. If you want to list publications by ALEC, add that information by using Template:Citation.
- Organization section - The organization section is not about how ALEC is organized. It's a list names. Who cares. If the people are important to ALEC, their name will be in the history section along with what they did regarding ALEC. Those organization tables in the article come directly from ALEC rather than from coverage in reliable sources that are independent ALEC. If a reliable source independent of ALEC didn't care to publish that information, why should Wikipedia publish that info in the article text? The minutia in those organization tables do not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature about ALEC. The article has a template infobox organization at the top that has parameters to add names of people running ALEC. I suggest deleting all the tables in the organization section and revising the history section and the template infobox organization accordingly.
- History section - The present history section also merely list names. Again, who cares. ALEC's history section needs to be revised to be a continuous, systematic chronological narrative of past important, unusual, and interesting events that relate to ALEC.
- The lead - The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. see MOS:LEAD. Instead, the ALEC lead appears to be the body of the article rather than summarize the body of the article. The information in the lead also needs to be written in the body of the article so that the lead may repeat information that is in the body. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Almost all of the Controversy section as written deserves to be blanked, not because there is not content that may need citing, but because none of the entries are written to describe actual controversies (except the inclusion of the ALEC mission statement, which was more of an "oops"). Wrestling with how to properly organize the article, but avoid WP:OR , since so many of the secondary sources are partisan and therefore unreliable. Thinking a better way is to take the leaked docs (which, unfortunately, are the best source for what the original ALEC model languages were) and match them to actual legislation; that might give a better picture of relevance, ie WHAT ALEC has done. If there IS an "ISSUES" section, then could take, not the prior entries, but the content of the NPR shows or actual issues raised as a pro/con entry.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
WP is NOT for censorship: 800 model bills
Our ubiquitous IP 209.x friend wants a "single entry", as he puts it, to document the publication of over 800 leaked pieces of model legislation produced by ALEC over a thirty-year period. To allow that would not be far from censorship, in my opinion. Our readers absolutely have the right to know what was in those model bills, and our own rules certainly permit that, when cited to reliable sources, as is the case with the content he deleted.
His specific objection is to the use of ten bullet points to call out content that was previously in the article, unbulleted, to describe the topic areas covered by those 800+ model bills. He deleted that entirely. But that's just one bullet point for every 80+ model bills. No one can tell me with a straight face that they think that's excessive; it would be ridiculous.
If IP 209.x still objects to the disclosure of the nature of those model bills, then I'd observe that its actually the refs he's objecting to, not the content. I say so, because there's no legitimate basis for an objection to the content itself. ALEC is about creating model bills; we certainly need to tell our readers what they comprise. If he has counterbalancing refs from reliable sources that specifically state that ALECs model bills in those areas are wholly in the public (rather than private) interest, he's free to add them to whichever bullet point they specifically apply to. – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, because the material is "leaked", and hence its provenance is uncertain, we cannnot quote it. We can only quote what reliable sources say about it. I suspect 10 is about all we can get. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- No one is talking about quoting from the primary sources, although I'll say, in passing, that I doubt RSN would agree with your assessment. But this is the section in question, before IP 209.x deleted the bulleted content:
Publication of over 800 leaked model bills
On July 13, 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy[1] in cooperation with The Nation published more than 800 pieces of ALEC's model legislation created over a 30-year period, brought to them from a source inside ALEC, by Aliya Rahmanan, one of the organizers of the 2011 Cincinnati protest against group.[2][3][4] The Center for Media and Democracy created a new web project named ALEC Exposed[5] to host these model bills, which had never before been available to the public. It also created dozens of tools to enable citizens to track ALEC politicians,[6] ALEC corporations,[7] and ALEC bills moving in their states.[8]
Simultaneously, The Nation issued a special edition[9] of its magazine devoted to breaking the story. It featured articles on ALEC's model bills and analysis of the group's:
- Attempts to influence election legislation toward enacting more restrictive voter ID laws and allowing unlimited corporate contributions;[10]
- Efforts to restrict states' revenue collection via taxes and fees,[11]
- Attempts to encourage privatization of public services,[11]
- Efforts to and oppose unionization and the influence of unions;[11]
- Efforts to influence healthcare legislation in a direction favored by corporate and insurance company interests,[12]
- Attempts to promote various forms of privatization for public schools.[13]
- Connection to the political activities of the Koch family[14]
- Efforts in favor of the privatization of prisons, longer prison sentences, more punitive sentencing guidelines,[15]
- Efforts toward the relaxation of the rules concerning the use of inmate labor by private industry.[15]
One of the journalists writing in The Nation, Mike Elk, subsequently appeared on Democracy Now! to discuss efforts by ALEC and the private prison industry to bring about these changes.[16]
On July 14, 2011, the Los Angeles Times announced that government watchdog Common Cause would issue a challenge to ALEC's nonprofit status, on the grounds that ALEC "spends most of its resources lobbying, in violation of the rules governing nonprofit organizations."[17]
References for the preceding.
|
---|
|
As I said, ALEC is about model bills: Our readers have the right expect that an article about ALEC will present information about those bills. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I always find it amusing that some people communicate so aggressively behind the relative anonymity of the web when they wouldn't do so in real life. My excitable IP friend's comments below have conflated the issue of the protests with the release of the 800+ documents, for reasons best known to himself. He might like to observe that I posted about the two matters in two separate sections. If anyone else would like to comment specifically about my view that one bullet point for every 80+ documents is hardly excessive, I'd be pleased to hear that. – OhioStandard (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The argument that because there are 800 documents within a leak there must be 800 WP entries is nonsensical
- Dear Ohio. WP is NOT a noticeboard or a column ("Our readers"? there is a problem if you regard WP as a place for YOUR readers), but an encyclopedia. You have made no logical argument for inclusion of the table of contents of a magazine issue. The average legal filing has a boxful (lets say a thousand) documents in it. If the filing is notable, it is notable on merits, not volume of paper. The leak is the leak, a singular event (and am already giving wide latitude; it isn't TECHNICALLY a controversy, either), most notable in that it provides a RESOURCE hitherto unavailable. Good. A Singular event, a single magazine issue, notable, but not to be reproduced on WP, but summarized. If you now want to USE this resource to expand the History of ALEC, fine. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Ummm.... You do know what EDITING is
There were about 100 "mostly uninformed" protesters; does that mean it is ridiculous not to have at least 10 bullet points in the soon-to-be-deleted (unless SOMEONE can make a case for NOTABILITY; I'm being really patient), which is only 1 per 10 people?? There is a single CONTROVERSY, so a single topic. You have just said in the rambling previous paragraphs that EVERY document that is leaked is a NEW CONTROVERSY. As suggested above, if the article needs examples of where ALEC model legislation has aided the real legislative process, that's appropriate. It just isn't a CONTROVERSY. Eliminating the irrelevant, sorting into proper categories, making the article read well and appropriately are all called EDITING. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Protests
In response to IP 209.x's most recent deletions, he should be aware, that the subjects of articles have to be notable, the contents about those subjects do not. Thus his objection above that the protests themselves might not be notable in themselves isn't relevant. I'd need to listen to it again, but if anyone has the time, my recollection was that the 19 April 2012 NPR program I documented in the "Additional public radio source" section, above, also spoke of protests, including (iirc?) one in Washington, D.C. Further, his calculations about the efficiency or lack thereof of online campaigns is interesting original research, but we all know that it can't be admitted, even if accurate. – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well. That was rambling and nonsensical. Not notable because the protests were minor and had little effect, Not notable because they garnered scant coverage (note; I'm the only one who found an even marginally RS). Now, lack of coverage can mean any number of things, so yes, determining WHY required a little research, and yes, as stated, that ends up, due to non-notability due to irrelevance, requiring a little WP:OR, not to include in the article, but to confirm NON-NOTABLE , hard to do. Non notability confirmed, and shared on the Talk page where it belongs, not on article page. Improving the article by editing.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I see IP 209.x has now deleted the entire "Protests" section with the misleading edit summary, "WP:NOTABLE , WP:UNDUE , WP:RS marginal and WP:SELFSOURCE discusssion on Talk page for weeks, still no arguments yet that this meets any of the criteria". He should actually read the policy pages he links to, e.g. Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article on WP:NOTE. I've reverted this most recent deletion. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE is a possible reason for deletion, but I think it's OK. I've seen bigger protests on minor local issues, though. And one would need to check the references to see if (1) they are "columns", rather than "articles", and (2) whether the author was participating in the protests. If both occur, then the reference is not reliable for anything other than the author's opinion. If either, it's questionable whether it might be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)