Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lucy Burns Institute: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 22 August 2014 editCapitalismojo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,112 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 16:05, 22 August 2014 edit undoCapitalismojo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,112 edits →Are Watchdog.org sources independent of LBI?Next edit →
Line 98: Line 98:


::'''Shared staff''' fails verification. There is no indication that the staff member was ever at LBI and given the ref provided, explicit evidence that the person was not. ] (]) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC) ::'''Shared staff''' fails verification. There is no indication that the staff member was ever at LBI and given the ref provided, explicit evidence that the person was not. ] (]) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate in this day and age to see a discussion that suggests that because a man runs one organization and the wife runs another that they are jointly controlled. Unless extremely strong RS refs state that categorically then it shouldn't be asserted here. It is insulting. I view it as a '''BLP violation''' here at talk. ] (]) 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


==Southern Illinoisan== ==Southern Illinoisan==

Revision as of 16:05, 22 August 2014

WikiProject iconPolitics Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Notability

Viewing the sources currently referenced, LBI doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for organizations. The only reliable secondary sources that are referenced are the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Governing. In both of these cases LBI is only mentioned in passing. This is what is referred to in WP:ORG as "trivial or incidental coverage."

It is true that Ballotpedia is gets substantial coverage in some of the referenced sources, but Ballotpedia already has its own page. Perhaps LBI and Ballotpedia (and Judgepedia) should be merged. But as this article stands now LBI does not merit its own independent article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommend merging Ballotpedia & Judgepedia to this page with redirects. Perhaps WP:BLARs will work. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A merge of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia to the Lucy Burns Institute page, along with appropriate redirects, would work. Although I do believe the Lucy Burns Institute has standalone notability, as evidenced by the numerous sources I've added to the article, including a Politico article which states that is based off of an article written by the "nonprofit, nonpartisan Lucy Burns Institute." Schematica (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've requested comment on this matter (see below). I'm not so sure a redirect is the best option here, given the fact that it does seem to me that the Lucy Burns Institute meets the notability test apart from Ballotpedia and Judgepedia. Schematica (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Schematica, I can't figure out what you want. You say LBI meets notability standards, but you post an RFC on the question. You say a merger of Judge- & Ballot-pedias to this page would work, and then say redirects would not work. And then you start an AFD on Judgeapedia. Next you add the NYT reference to Judgepedia, indicating its notability. If we are to merge the articles, e.g., Judgepedia into LBI, we incorporate the Judgepedia stuff here, blank the Judgeapedia page, and use it for a redirect. (See: WP:BLAR.) But you are splitting the discussions into to different forums: Judgeapedia talk, the AFD, and here. It's too confusing for me (and I think other editors.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I am new here and unsure of proper protocol in this situation. I originally said a merge would work because it seems like it would be reasonable to consolidate the articles. However, after finding more sources, I determined that the Lucy Burns Institute has what I believe to be, based on the sources, stand alone notability. So I changed my mind about the redirect. My frustration here is that on this page and also Judgepedia, I keep adding more and more sources, and the notability tag keeps getting re-added. My point is, either delete or redirect, or get those tags off. If there's no edits I can make that can satisfy other editors desire for notability, then let's not keep the page with the notability tag on it. It's disingenuous. Schematica (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently bad about the notability tag. Remember that this is a collaborative process. If you want the tag to disappear you have to convince me (or a consensus of others) that the article complies with WP:ORG. That may require adding additional sources. Of course those sources must be reliable, and to satisfy WP:ORG there must be significant coverage in those sources. If there are sources that satisfy those criteria, then the article stays and the tag gets deleted. If there aren't, then the tag stays (and the article eventually gets deleted). Don't take it personally. This is just how Misplaced Pages works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Srich32977, I would support a merge except that I don't see anything to merge. The sources only say that LBI runs Ballotpedia, Judgepedia, and Sunshine Review. Judgepedia appears not to meet WP:ORG (see pending AFD here), and Sunshine Review appears independently notable. My feeling is that Ballotpedia and Sunshine Review should stand as is, since they've received the lion's share of the media coverage, and LBI and Judgepedia should be deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say merge, but it might be nice to only have to say it once.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Schematica, it appears you're being batted around like a ping pong ball. The right way to resolve this issue is to explain right here why you think the subject satisfies WP:ORG. If we can't reach consensus then I'll start an AFD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucy Burns Institute Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the Lucy Burns Institute meet Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)? Schematica (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of sources

This Reason source and this OpenLawLab source aren't reliable per WP:BLOGS. These aren't newsblogs. Schematica, please explain why you believe these sources are reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy requires "inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." You've repeatedly removed the content "The Lucy Burns Institute publishes a website called Policypedia," and "The Lucy Burns Institute published a guide on local ballot measures" despite my efforts at inserting multiple references to verify these facts. Are these facts that are "likely to be challenged?" Morever, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." We're not trying to say "the sky is green" or "2+2=5." These are very simple, non-controversial statements. The sources I've gathered are perfectly sufficient for verifying the facts that they have been attached to in this article.
  • Publication of a website called Policypedia:
    • Reason Foundation "At the end of June 2014, the Lucy Burns Institute, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization dedicated to fairness and openness in politics headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, launched Policypedia." The claim is "The Lucy Burns Institute publishes Policypedia." This source verifies that claim.
  • Publication of a ballot measure guide book:
    • Election Law Blog by Richard L. Hasen Here we have a noted law professor writing that the Lucy Burns Institute published a ballot measure guide book.
    • KMED A radio segment discussing the book
    • Watchdog.org an article about the guide book

These sources seem satisfactory to me for the claims they are intended to prove in the article. Schematica (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, I didn't remove the content. I removed the Reason and OpenLawLab sources, and I did so based on WP:BLOGS. Reliability certainly runs on a spectrum, but WP:BLOGS clearly indicates that non-news blogs (such as these) are not reliable. They simply can't be cited for the facts they contain, period. If you feel that sourcing isn't required for the content because it's like saying "the sky is blue" then that's another matter beyond the scope of this discussion. Likewise for the other sources you mention. (I'll note, however, that the Election Law Blog runs afoul of WP:BLOGS as well and Watchdog.org is run by the subject of this article so it should only be cited in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Watchdog.org is run by the subject of this article? Do you have a source for that? Schematica (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, Watchdog.org isn't technically run by LBI. However LBI and Watchdog.org are sister organizations. LBI is run by Leslie Graves, Watchdog.org is part of the Franklin Center, which is run by Eric O'Keefe, and Graves and O'Keefe are married. In addition LBI is the successor to the Sam Adams Alliance, which helped launch the Franklin Center by providing seed money and personnel. Long story made short, Watchdog.org isn't reliable for reporting on organizations run out of the same household using the same people and funding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The openlawlab.com certainly is non-RS because it is a personal project. But the Reason Foundation blog, IMO, qualifies as a newsblog. It is run by an established foundation (not an individual or group of individuals) and is subject to editorial control. Also, Reason publishes a magazine and other publications. And given who has written the particular "blog" article, it may qualify as an expert's blog – but I am not opining on that at the moment. (There is, IMO, a gap in the BLOGS guidance because various institutions are creating blog pages for staff and consultant usage.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Reason source isn't a news blog because there's no evidence it was published as part of Reason Magazine. More importantly the author (Lance Christensen) isn't a professional journalist, as required by WP:NEWSBLOG. He's a political operative. See his Reason bio and his LinkedIn profile. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Right now the only citation supporting the fact that this group publishes Policypedia is the Reason piece. The options seem to be leave Policypedia out of the article, leave it in with no source, or leave it in with current source. What is preferred here? Also, the idea that the Lucy Burns Institute is a sister organization with Watchdog.org, and therefore a Watchdog article is "self-publishing", seems a bit far out. Is there a reliable source for your claim that the LBI is a sister org. w/ Watchdog? Shouldn't that be in the article, if it is verifiable? And if Watchdog.org is run by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Franklin Center is run by Eric O'Keefe, why is there nothing about that on the group's page (or on his page)? If these groups are really run out of the same household with the same funding, are they not one and the same group? Should we be merging the LBI with the Franklin Center? Or the LBI with the Sam Adams Alliance? Or all three together, or...? Looking forward to seeing some reliable sources so we can get all of these articles in the right place. Schematica (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As Policypedia is so new, I wonder if it is noteworthy. Perhaps it needs time to develop as a noteworthy project of LBI. If it turns out to be a noteworthy project, then providing a link to it as a reference, along with a link to the Reason reference, may be encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Srich, what do you think about the status of merging any of these articles in light of the new assertions that Franklin Center, LBI, Sam Adams, and Watchdog are all either predecessors or sister orgs/sites? I suppose we must wait for a reliable source to be introduced, but if they are all interconnected/interchangeable, it seems like some merging should probably take place. Schematica (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that all of those organizations and projects be merged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Per removal of ref discussion above, note that Reason.com has been discussed elsewhere at the project. Reason is a prominent magazine and I believe is generally considered RS. It is not a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate in this day and age to see a discussion that suggests that because a man runs one organization and the wife runs another that they are jointly controlled. Unless extremely strong RS refs state that categorically then it shouldn't be asserted here. It is insulting. I view it as a BLP violation here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are Watchdog.org sources independent of LBI?

Watchdog.org and its state bureaus are closely affiliated with LBI, the subject of this article, and therefore should not be used for sourcing without adhering to WP:ABOUTSELF. As I mentioned in a previous post here, Watchdog.org is controlled by the spouse of the person who runs LBI. Schematica submits that the Watchdog.org sources should remain in the article until "proof" is shown of these connections. Actually, it's the other way around. The editor seeking to establish verifiability of content has the burden of finding reliable sourcing. Besides, this is all easily verifiable with a few Google searches, and several of the connections are already in WP. Personally I find it quite offensive that "reputable" media sources are reporting extensively on awards won by affiliated organizations, without disclosing the affiliations. Especially for organizations whose stated mission is to promote transparency in our civic institutions. Quelle hypocrisie. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lost. What awards are you talking about? There is nothing in this article about any awards given to the organization. The edit in question has to do with whether Watchdog.org is a reliable source to verify that the LBI published a ballot measure guide book. Schematica (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry back, I got my articles mixed up. In any case the source here is being used in a promotional (and therefore self-serving) way. The fact that LBI published a ballot measure guide book really isn't noteworthy if the only source that even mentions it is an organization affiliated with LBI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Note, WP:IS is informative on this issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thus far the LBI is only affiliated with WatchDog.org because you keep saying that it is. Yet you've introduced no reliable sources that would verify your assertion. I'd imagine the assumption is that groups, people, and events are not considered to be connected unless and until a reliable source indicates that they are. Otherwise we would need to presume that all things at all times are connected, unless we can prove that they are positively not. That doesn't really seem tenable. Schematica (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please say you're serious before making me go through the trouble of proving something that you can easily verify for yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really like to see you produce a reliable source that demonstrates your claim that the LBI, Franklin Center, Watchdog, and Sam Adams Alliance are all run out of the same house and same bank account. Please do share. Schematica (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I never said they were run out of the same bank account, but they are financially connected. I'll have something ready soon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that Watchdog.org is closely affiliated with LBI

  • Watchdog.org and LBI have shared key personnel
  • Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009
  • Before the change in control Jason Stverak was the Regional Field Director of the Sam Adams Alliance
  • Also in 2009 Stverak became president of the Franklin Center (which runs Watchdog.org)
  • Stverak is also the president of Watchdog.org
  • Watchdog.org and LBI have shared common funding
  • Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009
  • The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from husband's Sam Adams in 2009
  • Also in 2009, the Franklin Center paid LBI $43,413
  • Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center
  • Husband's Sam Adams also funded wife's LBI

References

  1. ^ Peters, Justin. "'Serious, point-of-view journalism'?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  2. ^ "About". Watchdog.org.
  3. ^ Kosterlitz, Julie (December 12, 2009). "Conservative Watchdogs Awake". National Journal.
  4. "The Sam Adams Project". New York Times. July 19, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
  5. "Our Staff". Lucy Burns Institute.
  6. ^ Graves, Leslie. "About".
  7. Murphy, Bruce (June 12, 2014). "The mystery of Eric O'Keefe". Isthmus.
  8. ^ "Lucy Burns Institute is the new sponsor of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia". Lucy Burns Institute. {{cite web}}: Text "July 1, 2009" ignored (help)
  9. "Jason Stverak". Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.
  10. "Jason Stverak". LinkedIn.
  11. Schoffstall, Joe (April 12, 2013). "Watchdog Group Sued For $85 Million by Terry McAullife's Green Car Company in Libel Claim". CNS News.
  12. Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, Form 990 (PDF), p. 22
  13. Sam Adams Alliance, Form 990 (PDF), p. 30

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you for doing this very thorough, yet original research. I'm still not seeing any citation that makes the claim that the LBI and Watchdog.org are sister organizations so as to render one or the other's work "self-published." It looks like you'd have to take one source and add it to another to reach that conclusion, and I think that's WP:SYNTH. I also find your use of Guidestar as a source pretty funny after you made this edit on this very article. Anyway, what would you propose we do with this information? Schematica (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Conclude that Watchdog.org sources are not independent of the subject of the article, that they have a conflict of interest, and that they should be treated as questionable sources. Guidelines about RS and OR don't apply to talk page discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Shared staff fails verification. There is no indication that the staff member was ever at LBI and given the ref provided, explicit evidence that the person was not. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate in this day and age to see a discussion that suggests that because a man runs one organization and the wife runs another that they are jointly controlled. Unless extremely strong RS refs state that categorically then it shouldn't be asserted here. It is insulting. I view it as a BLP violation here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Southern Illinoisan

I've opened a thread at the reliable source noticeboard re. whether or not the Southern Illinoisan is a reliable source to verify that Ballotpedia covers school board elections. That's due to this edit which questioned the source's reliability without providing any context or detail for why the reliability was being questioned. Schematica (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In the future we should try to resolve our disputes through talk page discussion before taking them to the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what I've tried to do, but it hasn't worked thus far. You slapping a "reliable source?" tag on a newspaper citation without giving any reason in your edit summary or initiating any talk page conversation didn't strike me as an invitation to collaboration. Frankly it feels like you're holding the article hostage because you don't like the organization (or at least, your distaste for it causes you to start making accusations in French) . Schematica (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You get me wrong. My goal here is simply to make Misplaced Pages better. The Franklin Center's promotion of affiliated organizations without the typical disclosures bothers me because it makes it more difficult to improve these articles. Please try to assume good faith, and take the high road whenever you have a choice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories: