Talk:Lucy Burns Institute

Notability

Viewing the sources currently referenced, LBI doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Schematica (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong place to ask question - @Schematic: - This is the wrong place to be posting this question. You go to WP:AfD to figure out if something is notable or not. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I'll nominate for deletion to get the conversation going. Schematica (talk) 18:40, 17 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)

Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 [1] "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 [2] Here we have a noted law professor writing that the Lucy Burns Institute published a ballot measure guide book.
  • KMED [3] A radio segment discussing the book
  • Watchdog.org [4] 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 a close affiliate of 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) Italicized text added later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:44, 22 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)

You have to look at the specific source, not just the media outlet. Many outlets (including most established newspapers) produce various types of content, some of which is considered reliable and some of which is not. The specific Reason source used here is a post on the "Out of Control Policy Blog." So I'm at a loss as to how you can say it's not a blog. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 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)

• The connections between Franklin and LBI are well sourced below (permanent link here). Hence, no BLP violation. These sorts of analyses are legitimate and necessary for discussion of the subject. Why do you consider this so insulting?
• WP:QS makes clear that a conflict of interest does not require joint control. Check out the footnote in that section. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand why Franklin's sources have a COI here, given the connections with LBI.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 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 [5] 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 were launched by a husband-wife team

• Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity
• The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from the Sam Adams Alliance
• Sam Adams' chairman and CEO was Eric O'Keefe
• LBI's president and founder is Leslie Graves
• Graves and O'Keefe are married

• 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

--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 [6] 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)

That's pure technicality, IMO. The connection between Stverak and LBI is strong regardless of whether LBI ever signed his paychecks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

By "pure technicality", I take it to mean that yes you agree that this person was not in fact "shared staff", that this person was not ever an LBI employee? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree there's no evidence that he was an LBI employee on paper, but he was an employee of another organization that ran LBI's projects. That's what I mean by "shared personnel." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In any event, the Watchdog.org article in question here was written by Kevin Palmer [7]. Is anyone arguing that Kevin Palmer has a COI with the Lucy Burns Institute? Schematica (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am. This particular article is promoting the work of the author's boss's wife. Do you not see the COI? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't see a reliable source that says Eric O'Keefe runs, or has ever run, the Franklin Center or Watchdog. You've provided sources which say O'Keefe started the Sam Adams Alliance, which at one time provided funding for the Franklin Center. How does that make O'Keefe Kevin Palmer's boss? Schematica (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In the source you pointed to, Kevin Palmer, the source's author, is writing about the work of his boss's wife. Agree or disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, as I say above. What makes you think Eric O'Keefe is the boss of the Franklin Center? He's not listed on the board [8] or staff page of the Franklin Center [9], or on any of their 990s [10]. What evidence do you have that Eric O'Keefe runs or has ever run the Franklin Center? You've provided a source that says the Franklin Center was launched with seed money from the Sam Adams Alliance, but I don't know how you could construe that to mean that Eric O'Keefe must have then become "the boss" of the Franklin Center. No source says that. It's a pretty wild logical leap, not to mention unsupported by sources, to assume that the person who was CEO of a group that once gave another group money is now, several years later, the boss of everyone who works for that group. Schematica (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Revise: In the source you pointed to, Kevin Palmer, the source's author, is writing about the work of the wife of the person who helped launch his employer. Agree or disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The sources provided say that O'Keefe was CEO of the Sam Adams Alliance in 2009 when it provided funding (how much is not clear) to the Franklin Center. Nowhere in any sources provided does it say that this funding came with any control or oversight. They were apparently given a grant, as is a standard nonprofit practice. There is no evidence that O'Keefe or any other employee of the Sam Adams Alliance has ever exerted any control, editorial or otherwise, over the Franklin Center. The idea that O'Keefe had something to do with a blog post written on Watchdog.org in 2013 is a significant stretch. Schematica (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My question wasn't about control. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 24 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 to the woman. I view it as a BLP violation here at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about joint control. That's your gloss, not mine. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you said "Watchdog.org is run by the subject of this article."[11] So far your evidence for that is that two people who are married to each other both run organizations (and therefore the organizations must inherently be connected, apparently?) And also, a person who worked at one organization now works at another (according to LinkedIn). Also, both groups once got funding from the same entity. Huh. Grantmaking organizations fund dozens if not hundreds of groups. If one grantmaking organization gives two (or two hundred!) organizations funding, does that mean the funded organizations are connected? If someone works at one company then goes to another, does that mean the two organizations are connected? If so, I suppose Google and Facebook are one and the same, as they constantly "trade" employees. Schematica (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. These are small organizations, sharing of personnel is significant, especially in combination with the other connections. I've modified my original statement about control for clarity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and what does "husband and wife team" mean if not joint control? Why even discuss this matter (Watchdog.org) if it is not in fact jointly controlled. The whole point of the discussion is that Watchdog is ABOUTSELF re LBI. If they are not jointly controlled this discussion is moot. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Husband and wife team" means one launched one organization and one launched the other organization. And, as I've already explained, WP:QS doesn't require "joint control" to establish a COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, one launched one organization and one launched the other. Where's the inherent COI? I think this goes back to Capitalismojo's original concern, which is that you seem to be saying that if two spouses each run an organization, the organizations are inherently connected simply via the fact that the principals of each organization are married to one another. Are you making that claim? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that any entities launched by spouses are inherently connected via the marital legal contract? Schematica (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm making that claim, but not "simply." By the other connections I've articulated as well. WP:QS. Read the footnote. The policy quotes the NY Times' position on this: "And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, household members and other relatives can create conflicts or the appearance of them." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have started an RSN discussion here (permanent link here). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Southern Illinoisan

I've opened a thread [12] 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 [13] 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) [14]. Schematica (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You get me wrong. My goal here is simply to make Wikipedia 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)

Relating to this, I object to the simple deletion of sources from material in this article, leaving material unsupported, on the basis that an editor thinks the source is not great / perfect / completely independent. And to the deletion of material along with deletion of the sources, when the material itself is not seriously questioned. There's a lot (too much IMHO, to read at archived Southern Illinoisan RS NB discussion and at archived Judgepedia RS NB discussion, but one point made there by editor PBS is that wp:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT is a suggested treatment. An imperfect source can be a source. It may not be a completely perfect independent source, but it can be where you got an idea from. Especially when it is an easily verifiable fact, like the fact that school board elections are covered, as verified in one of those archived noticeboard discussions. It takes the development of the article backwards, if noncontroversial assertions are removed or de-sourced. --doncram 17:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about removing "not great / perfect / completely independent" sources. It's about removing unreliable sources. I shouldn't have to educate such an experienced editor as yourself about the distinction or that WP policy clearly [[WP:V|allows] any insufficiently sourced content to be removed outright. Instead of taking that more aggressive tack, I removed the unreliable sources themselves, allowing other editors to find reliable sourcing. And I'm troubled by your suggestion that the RSN discussions you cite are too long to be read but not too long to be cherry-picked. If you want to hitch your wagon to PBS's theory about SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then by all means go ahead, but you won't find consensus for that view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, doncram, are you complaining about content or conduct? If the latter, let's keep it in user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the Lucy Burns Institute funded by the Koch brothers?

I have read articles which stated that the Lucy Burns Institute is funded indirectly by the Koch brothers. I am including the link to one of those articles. That would explain how their funding jumped from $20k in 2008 to $1.6 million in 2012. Shouldn't this organization be more open with their users as to who is funding their organization?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lucy_Burns_Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circa1952 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lucy Burns Institute. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-remap-referendum-edit-0530-20140530,0,893150.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.gazette.com/education/2013/10/14/amendment-66-deemed-a-big-issue-nationally/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)