User talk:Capitalismojo/Archives/2015/October

Proposed deletion of Stop Bild Sexism

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Stop Bild Sexism, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Weak tea

Weak tea? I don't like tea, weak or strong, even with milk and honey. I thought the standard was WP:V. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ALEC

Tommy Thompson and all the other members I attached the category to are identified in the master American Legislative Exchange Council article--Thompson in the History paragraph. That paragraph, in turn, is sourced by the organization's main website [1] where Thompson's name appears in the second paragraph. Trackinfo (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting whatever errors are out there. But I don't follow your logic. How could alec.org not be a reliable source about the names of members, the leaders of its own organization? Certainly if an article were to say someone is employed by a particular institution, the BEST logical source would be to quote that organization's staff directory rather than from an outsider like what we would consider a normal RS--the press--to be. I use staff directories to verify employment in many articles. Beyond the current people on that list, yes, we will need to go to outside sources. I welcome your help to find such sources and add to the list. Trackinfo (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion moved to article talk. Just to finalize this thread, this organization is a legislative membership organization, when someone is no longer a legislator they are no longer a member. They are then former members and should be listed as such. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a FYI. ALEC has not always been helpful about its internal workings, so there's some opacity there. In the face of criticism, GEO Group bailed from ALEC maybe four years ago because, they admitted, it looked improper. CCA took longer to officially drop its membership. However I understand that they both continued to be exhibitors at ALEC conferences, though they would not have had the influence they did when CCA chaired the various versions of its criminal justice committee and GEO was a committee member. ALEC also underwent a major overhaul last year, dividing activities in response to complaints about illegal lobbying, I'd guess. Activist (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I apologize. I have deleted the last section of my post. Gil gosseyn (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's time

You need to start archiving. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)