Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

message: This article does not read like an encyclopedia entry due to its extensive use of the subject's own promotional material as the basis for the claims made about it.  I think the article would be of higher quality and more in line with wikipedia standards if neutral sources (or at least sources other THAN the subject and its allies) were used.
Gramsci3000 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: An organization's funding sources are an intrinsic element of what that organization is about.  Feel free to improve the paragraph, or suggest ways for it to be improved. Jerimee 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding Sources

message: :No, it works like this:
*I add a paragraph
*You revert it (1M)
*I restore it (1J)
*You revert it (2M)
*I restore it (2J)
So if you continue to delete work that doesn't support your POV, you are in violation of a rule that is designed to prevent non-constructive back and forth.  It's silly for us to spend our time reverting, when there are much better ways to improve this article and others. Jerimee 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Why do you persist in removing inaccurate information?  Since you persist in changing my edits, here is some proof that what I'm saying is true:
From https://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3467: Information that is collected through ordering a product or making a contribution is used solely by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.  We do not release, sell, or otherwise give out the names or addresses of our customers or contributors unless the customer or contributor has granted express permission to do so, except as required by law.
From http://www.mackinac.org/features/join/article.asp?ID=4986: The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and your gift is fully tax deductible.
501c(3)s are not required to reveal their donors. So quit undoing my edits. MKil 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is just as interesting that you are willing to revert countless times to get rid of citations from the New York Times and the IRS, but you are unwilling to speak against the use of biased citations on the ACORN page. Either way, you can't just delete content you don't like.  Jerimee 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 501 c(3)

message: Jerimee, perhaps you do not realize how biased your changes are to this page, so let me illustrate the issues I have with them:
*”While the Mackinac Center won't disclose its financial backers, it receives money from a variety of individual donors, corporations, and foundations.” Perhaps a minor quibble, but you say “won’t” and I say “does not.”  As a 501 c(3), Mackinac is not required to disclose its donors and it has a policy of protecting their privacy, as I’ve illustrated. Saying it “won’t” disclose its donors makes it seem like it is being secretive and refusing requests to name its donors. Now, I don’t know if it has refused calls in the past, so saying it “won’t” disclose is a bit misleading. It seems much more neutral to say it does not disclose them.
* “The Earhart Foundation is the single largest reported source of funding to the Center.” Not really accurate. The Earhart Foundation is the single largest source noted on the mediatransparency.org site, which only lists foundations’ support. There may be other places that discuss Mackinac’s funding, and Mackinac may itself report funding from donors who do not mind being publicly recognized. In short, you don’t really know much about Mackinac’s funding aside from the very incomplete mediatransparency.org site. So it’s much more accurate to say that the Earhart Center is the largest foundation that provides support. Of course, I’m not sure why we are only singling out one foundation among a large list, but I suspect is has something to do with the desire to label Mackinac as “anti-worker.”
*”Some of this funding is specifically earmarked to provide opposing viewpoints to that of the labor movement.” This is a very misleading statement. Your source says this about the Earhart Center funding:  “. . . to establish a Labor and Education Resource Center” (which is how my edits put this sentence). Looking at the Mackinac Center website, it appears the labor center and the education center are two separate centers. Furthermore, while the labor center does do some work about the labor movement, it also does a lot of work that is about other labor issues. Saying that the funding is earmarked to “provide opposing viewpoints to that of the labor movement” makes it seem the Center receives money specifically to fight unions. That is false. 
*”The Walton Family Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation have also openly contributed to the Center's efforts to oppose the unions representing Michigan workers.” Your source for this is a liberal columnist from a liberal alternative paper in Canada. Pretty biased by any measure. As you yourself said on the ACORN talk page, “You don't have to disprove POV research to establish NPOV, you have to have the discipline not to use biased sources.” Why was it bad to use a biased conservative source on the ACORN page but you hae no problem using a biased liberal source here?
I think it’s pretty clear that your edits inject highly biased language that violates Wikipedia’s NPOV standards. My edits, which you continually revert in violation of the three revert rule, do not have the problems with bias that yours have. If you disagree, please indicate how my edits are a violation of the NPOV standards. Don’t just continually revert my edits because you want to bash the Mackinac Center. MKil 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Edits

message: I removed the info inserted by Chrisalberts since it is directly taken from this Michigan Education Association publication:Mackinac Center: The Truth. It would seem to be a copyright violation as far as I can tell. Or, if this user is the author of that report, then it seems to be a conflict of interest.MKil (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MEA Publication

message: Within the Wikipedia community there exists a "rebuttable presumption" that edits to an article about an organization by a member of that organization do not add value for users. I would like to open the discussion about whether this major proposed edit (below) is appropriate or adds value.
My major edit was inspired by looking at the article and its editing history a few weeks ago, and believing that it was POV at least in the sense of being unbalanced.  As someone who has been involved with the organization for many years, it seemed the article doesn’t say much about what the Mackinac Center actually does or has done, which I imagine is what encyclopedia users really want to find out. The fact that some recent edits have come from the headquarters of MEA/MESSA, an organization that has sued the Mackinac Center, adds to POV concerns.
The article on the Cato Institute has been edited many hundreds of times versus the article on the Mackinac Center, which until now has been edited just a handful of times. So using the evolved structure of the Cato Institute article as a framework for this one seems reasonable (in particular, the introductory section, "Principles" and "Budget and Finances"). The Mackinac Center and Cato Institute are very similar in their ideology and in the range of the issues they cover.
It’s probably unusual for a staff member of an organization profiled on Wikipedia to offer such an extensive edit. I propose it it in good faith in the “talk” section, per Wikipedia “conflict of interest” guidelines, and trust that it can be improved.
Sincerely, 
Jack McHugh
Jack McHugh (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing a major edit here

message: Not sure why WikiBuddha reverted the page since no explanation was left in the edit summary or on the talk page.  I'd invite further discussion.
Jack McHugh (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of page  

message: Well I came back to finally deal with your edits and I see they are gone. 
I think that having J.C, the MC web guy, compile a massive download for Wikipedia is a long way from what the founders of Wikipedia had in mind. The bad press Wal Mart got doing the same thing wasn't all that long ago.
Anyway, you asked what I think. I think it's fair to edit the article, but your method of drowning my work by reproducing the MC website is an obvious attempt to drive material you don't like out of view.
If you're serious about a balanced article, you'll offer a more balanced edit.
:I find it somewhat ironic that you are attacking Jack for his actions when there have been numerous edits to this page by the MEA, with which you are most likely associated. At least Jack declares his bias when he edits. Making sneaky edits by cut-and-pasting MEA documents to this website is worse, in my mind, than Jack openly declaring he works for Mackinac and contributing.MKil (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Edits 

message: Chrisalberts objects that my edit buried the material he had added or edited. 
As I said here before posting my major revision, the article was previously POV at least in the sense of being unbalanced, because it said hardly anything about what the Mackinac Center does.
My intention was not to bury his material on finance, but to locate it in a position comparable to where this appears in the much more evolved structure of the Cato Institute article. Nevertheless, in reverting I moved the finance material and the MEA's description of the Mackinac Center’s founding to just below the introductory section. I'd appreciate feedback from others on this positioning.
Chrisalberts has also insinuated that as a Mackinac Center staffer my editing of this article is improper. I am very sensitive to this and believe I have followed the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines for such cases.
Jack McHugh (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion but with finance material moved toward front 

message: Some of the edits by 98.243.252.107 seem clearly POV, and others subtract rather than add value to the article. (Comparison here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy&action=historysubmit&diff=404574209&oldid=400160830 )
Specifically, by section:
“Principles:”
99.243.252.107 has removed material that provides a clear picture for users of the Center’s philosophical underpinnings. I don’t see what value is added by removing this. 
Value IS added by adding information about the Center’s sympathy with some core Tea Party grievances, but “aligns itself with the Tea Party” suggests some formal connection or comprehensive embrace of all the currents of this social movement – neither of which is accurate. 
Something like this would be accurate: “The Center is generally sympathic to grievances expressed by the ‘Tea Party’ movement, and its policy staffers have spoken at some Tea Party events.” 
“Education Policy Initiative”
99.243.252.107 has made several word substitutions that suggest a POV intention to diminish the subject of the article. When a person is employed by a think tank to analyze public policy it is correct to label him or her an “analyst,” and insisting otherwise suggests an animus. Labeling the contents of an organization's empirical study as “its beliefs” likewise suggests POV animus. While the word “belief” may fairly (if not optimally) be applied to a recommendation made by a study author, unfalsified empirical information presented in the study are fairly described as "facts" or "findings," not as “beliefs” and “assertions.” 
“Labor Policy Initiative”
99.243.252.107 adds value with the information that Robert Hunter was appointed by Reagan to the NLRB.
99.243.252.107 adds opinion and POV with the claim that Robert Hunter joined the Center “in an attempt to promote Reagan era ideas of Labor rights.”  
“Science, Environment, and Technology Initiative”
POV: “(The Mackinac Center) openly suggests that environmentalism is tantamount to communism.”
“Influence On Public Policy”
99.243.252.107 inserts an inaccurate description of “the Overton Window” as it was originally conceived by the late Joseph Overton. The distinction is important and is explained in the Wikipedia article on the Overton Window - the proper place for information on permutations not authored by anyone associated with the Mackinac Center. (I contributed to that article.)
Full disclosure reminder: As I stated above when I first made edits to this article, and in my user page, I have been associated with the Mackinac Center for a number of years. 
Jack McHugh (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV material in previous edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 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/20150318011132/http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp to http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp
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) 15:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has received funding and support from the Koch family foundations, which it has, why is this fact not mentioned in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding/support from [[Koch family foundations]]