Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council

message: * . 
::More needs to be added from this source. It's incredibly dense and informative. I'll get to the rest in the next couple of days if others haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a more recent Governing article by Greenblatt. I haven't read it in depth yet but it could provide excellent reliable coverage of some of the recent controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

text: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Opinion though some aspects may be cited for facts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Opinion piece, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

text: * Haven't analyzed reliability yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Questionable reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

text: This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
:* Haven't analyzed reliability yet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACCE 

message: * 
* 
::Opinion source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Questionable reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: In each of the sources above the context in which they are to be used is critical. Are there specific edits being proposed?  – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just research, a collection of sources that appear useful. Some of these sources may not make it into the article. I generally separate my research and writing tasks; it helps me stay organized, and it better enables other editors to contribute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Context?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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/20120205023422/http://www.alec.org/about-alec/ to http://www.alec.org/about-alec/
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) 09:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's revert of my edit (see diff) as there was no explanation provided. My edits were perfectly in line with MOS and NPOV. Quis separabit? 04:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a number of things wrong with your edits. For starters, you appear to have removed important, reliably sourced content such as the fact that ALEC's activities are legal. Second, your characterization of various media outlets (including the The New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek) is unsourced and non-neutral. Third, you messed up the title of one of the sources. Fourth, you broke up some paragraphs in a way that in my view makes the prose read a little more choppily. Finally, the word "reportedly" is non-neutral as it's used as an expression of doubt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com

message: According to WP:SPLC, SPLC is WP:RS for such claims. If you revert me, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk)  05:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Homophobic is one of those terms we really need in direct quotes. But also the quote seems much broader than homophobia. A summary of that would probably be about "lobbying against corporations' efforts to improve racial and gender diversity". Ok, that's a bit too close of a paraphrase, but something to that effect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Regarding my quote, by that I mean the source justifies saying ALEC is part of the Back to Neutral coalition. The coalition is engaged in these activities. I just mean that it would be a little too much to apply the transitive property to attribute Back to Neutral's activities directly to ALEC (as opposed to Back to Neutral, which ALEC is part of). Does that make sense? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an egregious WP:BLP violation which wasn't even verified by the source. I have changed the content to actually reflect what the source says. Marquardtika (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not some kind of freak who cannot work collaboratively. The rub seems to be among "homophobic", "anti-LGBT", and . So, yeah, "homophobic" isn't mentioned verbatim, it is implied something . Am I figuring it, or it got from bad to worse (for ALEC c.s.)? The BLP violation got removed so that the article sounds even meaner. You would not believe me, but in my version the charge was milder and more limited. While Nelson is no longer mentioned by name, the charge against her is worse now. By removing her name, the charge was not removed, but it is . The BLP violation was thus a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Wrong place in the article? Then move the text, don't delete it. It is relevant to know what their broad network of Mitläufer organizations is doing. About laws, I heard there is a Texas law that websites are not allowed to censor Texans. See . It is quite clear that if one is a neonazi from Texas, their posts should not be deleted. This is wholly in line with Nelson's aims. She fights against "woke corporations" who censor neonazis, anti-LGBT and racists, i.e. what she calls "this corporate woke culture". About such efforts against the woke Big Tech she stated "We are certainly a part of that." Of course, I don't have WP:RS that ALEC has drafted the Texas social media law, but it certainly seems that their Mitläufer did. It certainly looks like a MAGA law. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT rights section 

message: Tie to the Koch network should be made explicit in the lead section and not buried deep in the body of the text and falsely presented as unverified claims. There’s literally dozens of books on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good suggestion on the principle that the most important items can be gleaned by the reader in the first paragraph.  Multiple books on the subject indicates the content is important.  It would be helpful if you could list some of those books as a bread crumb path for Wikipedians who may have time to edit the lead. Anne9853 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section