Talk:AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest

message: The existence of the wikilink makes it unneccesary to characterize the AEI as "neocon" or "conservative" or anything else since the link goes to an article where it is fully described.  Furthermore, I object to the sources used.  The NYT article cited  says "In a forthcoming article in The American Prospect, a liberal journal, John B. Judis, a historian of American conservatism, says the debate over Iraq was foreshadowed last year in a published exchange between Mr. Buchanan and Ben Wattenberg, an author and commentator, who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative policy organization." I interpret the appellation of the label "neocon" to the liberal author John Judis and not the (supposedly) unbiased Times reporter. The LA Times cite says "a think tank associated with neoconservatism."  This is a more subtle position and it open to exploration in the article American Enterprise Institute where the views of reputable political historians can be reported in a neutral way to discuss the issue.  Dropping loaded adjectives in related articles is not helpful. Thatcher131 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  I accept the argument that neoconservative isn't particularly appropriate for jurisprudential theory and should not have been put there in the first place.  --David Shankbone 03:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This harkens back to an earlier dispute in which an editor was determined to say "Joe Smith is associated with the far-right Foo party" when the article Foo party itself had no such characterization.  The appropriate place to discuss how Foo party is characterized by political scientists and experts is at its own article; same principle applies here.  Thanks. Thatcher131 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not always the case, especially if it's relevant to the article.  Organizations are characterized all the time in articles, especially if one deals with a misnomer such as "Public interest" when it's in reality a proponent of the corporate good.  --David Shankbone 03:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you miss my point.  The statement "Joe Smith is on the board of the industry-supported fake public interest group Foo for the Public Good" is inappropriate for the article on Joe Smith, because the nature of the organization may be complex, or in doubt, or disputed by various factions.  Better to just say "Joe Smith is on the board of Foo for the Public Good.  However, a discussion of what sort of organization FPG is is obviously appropriate in its own article.  Similarly here, I could cite as many refs saying that AEI is a conservative think tank as you can that it is neocon; rather than cause a problem with a throwaway label here, just use a neutral label and then discuss AEI's place on the political spectrum at AEI. Thatcher131 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, gotcha.  --David Shankbone 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AEI 

message: I have concerns about recent edits. Two paragraphs of a 4-paragraph article are based on a critical 17-year-old NY Times article, which documents one reporter's impressions from attending a single 1990 banquet sponsored by this entity. To devote half of an article to a fleeting, 17-year-old criticism is inappropriate. Given my recent conflicts with the editor who made the changes, I'm not going to touch it for the next few days, but I think these concerns need to be addressed. ATren 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical response is: You should expand the article!  We're here to share information, not take it away because we don't like it, or because we don't add two positives for every negative, or two negatives for every positive, or whatever.  So, if you feel balance is needed - you really should be the one to add the balance.  That's the way things work on Wikipedia.  Do a Google!  It's not hard.  --David Shankbone 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's especially amusing is the article doesn't report on anything that this Center feels it should be ashamed about, but you consider it "criticism" - They are not ashamed of their policy advocacy and are quite open about it.  But you feel it is a negative?  Interesting.  --David Shankbone 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, the added text is clearly critical: "Despite it's name, its primary focus was on the corporate sector." "It is no longer only what's good for General Motors that is good for America, but what's good for Dow Chemical, Amway, Shell Oil, 3M" Are you saying that that the implication that this group is aligned with chemical companies, multi-level marketing companies, and oil companies is not intended to be critical? These are three of the least popular corporations in modern history, and this article implies that the NLCPI is doing their work, with little more evidence than guilt by association. It is undue criticism. ATren 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether these companies are the "least popular corporations in modern history" (although I think Enron, Aetna, Halliburton, Blackwater and Exxon-Mobil would raise an issue with that statement).  Regardless, if you are going to counter the claims, spend time researching and providing citations.  Right now you are just "musing" that a citation of a major publication isn't fair.  If you think that is the case, the proper way to go about it is to provide a cited source for the article.  The issue is WP:V, and not your personal POV.  --David Shankbone 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have researched it. I've found almost no correlation between these companies and NLCPI other than that one article from 1990, which itself seems to be guilt by association. It is undue criticism, and expanding the rest of the article to counter the criticism is not appropriate. It should be removed. ATren 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You found no indication that these companies were on their board of directors, and that the NLCPI worked on the behalf of corporate America?  Really?  Because I can expand the article with citations to Googled law journals, et. al.  But if that's the case, perhaps you should provide a citation disputing the WP:V - you are not a reliable source.  --David Shankbone 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, I'm removing the second paragraph and rewording the third. This criticism represents 50% of the article and is based solely on a 17 year old source (which appears to be an opinion piece) that uses little more than guilt by association to imply that this organization is doing the work of unpopular corporations. It is POV and undue weight. ATren 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will revert you.  You do not have consensus to remove information about what was in the group's annual reports.  Vet any changes here on the Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and WEIGHT 

message: Sources showing the corporate nature of the institution (it's really not a controversial thing):
:#"Between 1999 and 2003, Roberts also served on a nonpaying advisory committee to the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an education group that takes money from corporations and promotes tort reform."  
:#"Other conservative business interests quickly replicated Fluor's model. In 1975, money from the major oil companies helped to create the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an umbrella organization for several regional litigation groups. Each group's focus was determined by its location. The most influential spinoff group to emerge was the Mountain States Legal Foundation, financed by the beer magnate Joseph Coors, which was set up in 1977 to challenge federal land-use and natural-resources regulations, long a source of political resistance in the West. (The foundation's distinguished alumni of the period include Gale Norton, now secretary of the interior, and Jon Kyl, now a senator from Arizona.)  Though these conservative groups clearly served the interests of local businesses, they also attracted a number of libertarians, many of whom were not always consistent supporters of big business." 
:#[Exxon-Mobil 2006 funding sheet. 
:#To facilitate this expansion the founders of the PLF, with the help of the rainmaker Fluor and the ubiquitous Richard Mellon Scaife,  created the nationwide National Legal Center for the Public Interest in 1975. Viewing the term public interest as encompassing both ends of the ideological spectrum, the National Legal Center’s purpose was to replicate the PLF model in other regions. It went on to found the Mountain States Legal Foundation, what is now the Atlantic Legal Foundation, and the Landmark Legal Foundation, covering the Great Plains states, amongst others.  Again demonstrating the movement’s historically reactionary roots, the National Legal Center helped create these regional organizations by meeting with regional chambers of commerce and informing them of “the clear and present dangers of public interest law” and asking them to help create a counter-force."  University of Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal.
--David Shankbone 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have shown here is that the NLCPI has received funding from corporate entities, but there's no statement that the "corporate sector" is their primary focus. That is OR, and is countered by your own source ("Though these conservative groups clearly served the interests of local businesses, they also attracted a number of libertarians, many of whom were not always consistent supporters of big business.") It seems there is a pattern of support for deregulation and tort reform, and while these might be considered corporate-friendly stances, this is not a corporate sector focus per se. Indeed, the fact that the NLCPI has attracted anti-regulation anti-business libertarians does not mesh with the conclusion that it is primarily a corporate sector focus. I also still have concerns about the association to Shell and Amway, which is only documented in the Times opinion piece. ATren 19:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a New York Times article that backs that up already, and it's not an Op-Ed but a reporter attending an event and reporting on it.  So, there is no OR in the article.  If we can't resolve this, we can open it up for an RfC, but you should really find some sources.  I have no problem with you adding the "tort reform" language.  --David Shankbone 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a 17 year old isolated article by a single reporter who is reporting his impressions of a conference sponsored by NLCPI. It is undue weight to include such an isolated criticism in a stub article. ATren 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that there are other sources that back up the corporate sponsorship of this institute, that's not the way WP:V works.  He's not reporting his "impressions".  He's not writing, "It appears that" or "It seems like"; he wrote a story that was fact-checked by one of the eminent newspapers in the country.--David Shankbone 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other sources do not say anything about "corporate sector focus", and they don't mention Amway, Shell, or Dow. I did a news archive search on these companies and NLCPI and found nothing substantial. It is a single, isolated 17-year old article that appears to be more of an opinion piece than a news article. It is undue weight to include such isolated, specific criticism in a stub article, and nothing you've presented here has changed my view on that. ATren 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you are questioning whether the New York Times did it's research to see who was on the Board of Directors of the NLCPI?  That's not a reasonable line of argumentation.  If that were to win out as a line of argument, then any source could be taken down just because someone casually decides that a source, no matter its reputation, might be wrong.  It's not a criticism; that's your own POV interpretation of it.  --David Shankbone 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of your arguments come from the wrong tact, ATren:  if you feel the article is too narrowly focused, then expand it.  You only want to contract it by getting rid of a credible source.  That's not a winning argument.  If in your research you found that it does other things, then expand the article.  But removing sourced information is violative of policy, whether you like the information or not.  --David Shankbone 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said, expand the article, but there is no undue weight that this organization was funded by corporate interests.  It is just a fact.  It's not even a minority viewpoint...it just is.  All the keystrokes you expend arguing the same thing could be used to expand the article.  And one sentence is hardly undue weight, ATren.  You simply don't want it in there.  --David Shankbone 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You simply don't want it in there." No, I had never heard of this entity before today. My objections are based on Wikipedia policy. It is you who "simply wants" this information in there. And since you are the one who is insisting it stays, then you should also be the one who resolves the weight concern. Personally, I believe a stub is sufficient for an entity that no longer exists and which was never very notable in the first place, but since you are the one who insists on inserting isolated 17-year-old quotes about a defunct organization, then you are responsible for providing the balancing text. ATren 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ATren, you are citing to your own personal philosophy and now handing out homework to volunteers.  The Wikipedia model is that we all contribute the information we know and want to contribute.  If you feel that more should be written about this organization...then you write it.  You don't tell other people to do the work you would like to see done.  It's not the wiki way.  And the project also wants more information, not less, just because you have an issue with one sentence or a valid source, or sources as the case may be.  --David Shankbone 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David, there are two NPOV approaches we can take with this article: (1) a stub, like the one that existed before your edits (), or (2) a more extensive article that describes both the detailed activities of the organization as well as the detailed criticisms. An article that has only one side is inappropriate, but as far as I'm concerned, a stub is more than adequate for this organization, which didn't even generate much notability when it still existed (and now it doesn't exist). You are the one who insists on adding barely notable criticism that violates weight, and as long as you insist that that criticism must stay, then you should provide the balance. If it's up to me, I'm reverting back to the stub version. ATren 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not criticism, ATren.  Since you didn't know the organization existed, how would you, who is not involved in legal circles (unlike me) know anything about its notability?  You are making pronouncements on topics for which you have no expertise or knowledge.  I'm done arguing with you about it.  Perhaps an RfC will be the way to go.  --David Shankbone 23:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if it's so notable to someone like you in legal circles, how come you never addressed these concerns before this week? It remained as a non-controversial stub for two years, and now, after the organization has disbanded, this criticism becomes absolutely essential to include, in violation of WP:WEIGHT? What is it that changed in the last week, that makes this organization so notable now? ATren 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even understand what you are arguing about anymore and I do not see the correlation between how when I make an edit to an article it indicates its notability, but one thing is clear: this is a topic you don't know anything about (by your own admission).  --David Shankbone 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can read sources, David. Please do not imply that I am somehow unqualified to comment on this. And I have absolutely no prior opinion on this organization, so it has nothing to do with what I "want". So now that you've questioned both my motives and my intelligence, what next? Why don't you just answer to the weight issue (which you don't seem to deny) and stop questioning my qualifications in raising this issue? ATren 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed that there is no weight issue throughout these threads.  I did not question your intelligence, but your knowledge.  I ascribed no motivations to you.  But, we aren't going to convince each other, so no need to continue to discuss it.  --David Shankbone 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sources of pro-business nature

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. 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/20071115144644/http://www.aei.org/research/AEI%20Legal%20Center/about/projectID.30/default.asp to http://www.aei.org/research/AEI%20Legal%20Center/about/projectID.30/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928211545/http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2469 to http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2469
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105055054/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/news/feature/2005/08/11/roberts_business/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/11/roberts_business/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified