Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

src: www.mackinac.org

Video Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Sources

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)

Maps Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Funding Sources

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)

If you are going to discuss funding, you need a much longer paragraph than this. Mackinac gets a lot more funding than what is on the media transparency page. A lot comes from individuals and a lot is also not earmarked for specific projects. I'm going to remove the Earhart language because Earhart is only one of many funding sources that Mackinac receives. There is no reason to single it out for special notice or try to smear Mackinac by selectively pointing out only one of its funders. MKil 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

I have no reason to think that Earhart is disreputable. They are the largest funder, so they are the example. I am restoring the info. Jerimee 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They are not the largest funder. They are the largest as reported by your source, but that is a very incomplete source of Mackinac's funding. It is simply not notable that Earhart funds them. Putting that in the article ignores all the other funding sources that Mackinac receives and is clearly trying to paint them as doing the bidding of the "vast right wing conspiracy." It's innacurrate, incomplete information and should either not be included or included as part of a larger section on Mackinac's funding. So I'm taking it out. MKil 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Once again I am restoring the info, which is the only cited info in the article. If you wish to expand upon the funding source of the center you are welcome to do so. Jerimee 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out, the article is incomplete. While the Earhart Center may be the largest foundation donor, it may or may not be the largest overall donor. To say that it is is inaccurate. So I'm removing it. MKil 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

I tried to synthesize our two respective paragraphs on tax status. I took out that thing about does not report (tax law requires it to) and toned down some of my language to make it more neutral. Jerimee 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerimee 19:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And I revised it further. Tax law does not require a nonprofit to disclose its donors. MKil 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Um, yes it does, and I doubt the Center is a 501(c)3. Even if it is, it is still required to disclose certain types of giving. Where do you think transparency groups get their info from? Jerimee 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Center is a c(3) and tax law does not require that c(3)s disclose their donors. To say so is completely wrong. They are required to explain expenditures (that means what they spend) but not where they get their money. Foundations are required to disclose their expenditures and that is how the transparency group gets its information. If you don't believe me, then research the tax law. Until you do so, don't revert this edit because to do so is inaccurate. MKil 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

src: talked.tv

3RR

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)

Your present attempt to edit the article to conform with your POV is an improvement. However, it deletes the citations, and is untrue. Organizations are required to release information about funding sources, how do you think transparency groups get their data? Jerimee 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not untrue. Foundations are required to release information on who they give to. Nonprofits are not required to release information on who gives them money. So while it's true that a portion of Mackinac's funding comes from foundations, it is misleading to rely only on the biased media transparency site to discuss Mackinac's funding. Your cite only lists a small portion of the money given to Mackinac. Any discussion in the Mackinac article must take this into account, and your initial blurb did not do so. MKil 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

src: blog.acton.org

501 c(3)

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)MKil

I'm sorry, these do prove what you are claiming: see "except as required by law." Go to the IRS webpage here: IRS Charities Jerimee 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, do some research. From a news story (http://www.hillnews.com/news/031704/charities.aspx): "Unlike political action committees and so-called 527 soft-money fundraising groups, named after a section of the U.S. tax code, 501(c)3 charities don't have to report their contributors to the Federal Election Commission, the IRS or any federal agency."

So please, once and for all, please quit reverting my edits to the Mackinac page. Your edits make the article inaccurate. MKil 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

Then you will have no trouble finding it in the IRS code. I don't know how it helps the article to depict the Center as being secretive about their funding sources. My real problem is that you want to hide the fact that the Mackinac Center is anti-union, something which the Center's itself makes no attempt to hide. Your depiction of the Mackinac Center's desire to be secretive about their financial dealings is of little interest to me. Jerimee 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide any facts. I am simply trying to write an unbiased entry for Mackinac. Using words such as "anti-union" slants the article. Earhart gave Mackinac money for its Labor and Education Center. That is a completely neutral description of their activity. Your biased source that talks about the Walton Foundation money giving to Mackinac is certainly not reliable, so I'm removing it. I find it interesting that on the ACORN page you complain about the usage of biased conservative sources for material there, but here you have no problem using an equally biased source to slam Mackinac.

I don't know why you persist in trying to fill this article with slanted information on Mackinac. The edits I made were 100% accurate. MKil 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

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)

I wasn't aware I was removing NY Times information and in my latest edit it stands. However, I restored my edits to the funding paragraph. My edits are 100% factually correct. While you accuse me of deleting content I do not like, I am actually only removing biased information and biased language inserted by you. I'll once again note your derision of those who used biased conservative sources on the ACORN page but your desire to use biased liberal sources here. You can't have it both ways. If my edits are so bad, then please explain why your revisions are better. MKil 04:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)MKil

src: talked.tv

Biased Edits

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)MKil

src: www.mackinac.org

MEA Publication

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)MKil

---

src: www.dailydetroit.com

Proposing a major edit here

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)

---

src: www.mackinac.org

Reversion of page

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)

src: d32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net

Your Edits

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)MKil

src: video.motowndigital.com

Reversion but with finance material moved toward front

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)

src: www.aclumich.org

POV material in previous edit

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)

src: www.paspotlight.org

External links modified

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia