![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)general discussion about above sources
|
---|
Context?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)
|
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ Marquardtika: 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)
Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPLC at ALEC. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Genericusername57: See:
Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.
If that's not being homophobic, then I don't know what it is. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@
Rhododendrites: About we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are
: the source is saying “We’re particularly sensitive about this corporate woke culture,” said Nelson, using a slang term associated with social justice activism. “We have a new coalition ... that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that.”
tgeorgescu (
talk)
13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
the quote seems much broader than homophobia. So, yeah, "homophobic" isn't mentioned verbatim, it is implied something
much broader than homophobia. 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
much broader. The BLP violation was thus a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
My WP:NPOV concerns (and the WP:BLP and WP:OR concerns raised by other editors here) have been addressed by this edit, although I question inclusion of the SPLC opinion per WP:UNDUE. For ALEC, “200 of its model bills become law each year”, so how many of these are LGBT-related bills, and which are on the pro- or anti- side? Participation in a coalition (which itself is not notable) and which has produced no notable model bills or even policy positions of ALEC seems irrelevant to the section titled “Notable policies and model bills”. BBQboffin ( talk) 03:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)general discussion about above sources
|
---|
Context?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)
|
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ Marquardtika: 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)
Discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPLC at ALEC. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Genericusername57: See:
Much of the Back to Neutral coalition’s work challenges companies’ attempts to expand racial and gender equality, CMD and Hatewatch found. An older nonprofit where Nelson is a board member, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), spearheads that coalition. They purchase shares in corporations, lobby their board members and urge shareholders to vote out directors who support diversity initiatives.
If that's not being homophobic, then I don't know what it is. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@
Rhododendrites: About we can say they're involved to the extent the source says they are
: the source is saying “We’re particularly sensitive about this corporate woke culture,” said Nelson, using a slang term associated with social justice activism. “We have a new coalition ... that is really, really active. ... We are certainly a part of that.”
tgeorgescu (
talk)
13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
the quote seems much broader than homophobia. So, yeah, "homophobic" isn't mentioned verbatim, it is implied something
much broader than homophobia. 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
much broader. The BLP violation was thus a purely formal concern. tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
My WP:NPOV concerns (and the WP:BLP and WP:OR concerns raised by other editors here) have been addressed by this edit, although I question inclusion of the SPLC opinion per WP:UNDUE. For ALEC, “200 of its model bills become law each year”, so how many of these are LGBT-related bills, and which are on the pro- or anti- side? Participation in a coalition (which itself is not notable) and which has produced no notable model bills or even policy positions of ALEC seems irrelevant to the section titled “Notable policies and model bills”. BBQboffin ( talk) 03:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
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)