Talk:Public Interest Legal Foundation

POV issues

This article has a definitely slanted POV, reporting mostly negative information. I'm going to add a few other references. Pkeets (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: reversion. ‎Snooganssnoogans, you need to discuss this before reverting. The changes are not puffery, but balance the POV of a legitimate non-profit organization. If you won't agree to revert to my version, we'll need to have an administrator look at it. Be quick. I don't have a lot of time to devote to things like this. Pkeets (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no POV problem with the article. The article fully reflects what RS say. Your edit both removed RS content and changed the wording so it no longer reflected the cited RS. You also added puffery that was self-sourced to the organization, and non-RS content sourced to Hans von Spakovsky who has built a career on lying about voter fraud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about edit warring. I reverted to fix the last 2 references. I've also asked for assistance in discussing changes to the article from WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Hopefully we'll have more opinions on the article and the sources soon. Besides the POV issues, it was poorly written and needed to be placed in standard Wikipedia format for this kind of non-profit organization. Pkeets (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The text you added to the article sources claims in Wiki voice to Hans Von Spakovsky who has made a career out of lying about voter fraud and the Epoch Times which is a depreciated source. The text should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. If you object to these two, I'll look for different sources. Hold on a minute. Pkeets (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. Content should reflect what reliable sources say. You should revert the changes that you edit-warred into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Just now, you added the same non-RS article, except it was crossposted to an amateurish blogpost page.[1] Again, this is not Wikipedia articles are written. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the Epoch Times. Which reference are you referring to? If you still don't like that source, I'll look at the NPR statement again. Currently looking for a different source for another one. Pkeets (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You cited an Epoch Times article which was crossposted to something called "ntd.com". You're edit-warring low-quality content into the article, and it's almost as if you have no idea what you're citing and that you're not even reading what you're citing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Will look at that one again. I'm finding multiple articles on the NPR news, but they're all by Hans von Spakovsky. I'm going to just leave that one under his name until we get another opinion on him. Pkeets (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable. Content on Wikipedia cites reliable sources. It doesn't cite random bullshit by known liars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you should be more careful about what you post, as it may amount to defamation. I'll take it out for now, but we'll wait for some other opinions on including it. I think the others look pretty good for now. Pkeets (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. What would you think about citing the original PILF report on the NPR info? Pkeets (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

POV discussion

First-party sources do not show the import of the information. If it's not "basic information" and we don't have a reliable third-party source covering it, then we probably shouldn't either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to take out the first reference and the second paragraph of your reversion, then, which pretty much comes from their website. I personally don't think it's a problem to take the incorporation date, the stated mission and the non-profit information from their site. Including "known for suing" and "false claims" etc. in the first paragraph without balancing it in some way is a POV problem. Pkeets (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The first reference is used to verify their location, which is the sort of thing that qualifies as "basic information" - we want to include it even if other sources do not. Claims they wish to promote are a different matter. "Stated mission" is of far less importance than what they actually are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be helpful to include the info that they're a 501c and when and where they were incorporated in the first sentence. This is basic information, and you will need the second reference for it. All the rest of the info in the introduction is covered later in the article. Please address the POV issue. The article, including the intro, needs to show neutrality. Pkeets (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the apathy. Pkeets (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should include 501c status in the first sentence.

Giving the group's own spin on who they are and what they do as the opener is far from being neutral. For neutral, we see how they are largely covered in reliable third-party sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not neutral if all you pick and choose from the third party sources is negative. Please check WP:BRD and WP:CYCLE. Pkeets (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're pointing to those two pointers to the same essay, but you were the one who was being bold and getting reverted and then redoing much the same material. I'm the one who started the discussion. I haven't seen you putting forth some large base of third-party sources that aren't about them suing states and local governments to purge voters from election rolls, or about their problematic exercises. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I offered information and sources, and I'm not going to slave away trying to satisfy you. If you don't like what I offered, then find more neutral things to say about the organization yourself. The information here is outdated, btw, and needs revision to show more recent events and information. Pkeets (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the need to make things "more neutral" in the sense you likely mean, because they seem neutral in Wikipedia terms. It's hard figuring out what sources you added because of how you rearranged things, but I'm seeing such sources as PR Newswire (not a third-party source); the Washington Times, which the track record at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard notes it as marginally reliable, to be avoided when there are better sources, and partisan; and an article from The Hill that doesn't mention the PILF. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't look to me like editors are opposed to any expansion or POV adjustment as claimed at Wikiproject Conservatism; what I see here is valid concern over self-sourced puffery and whitewashing. A recent series of edits replaced negative information supported by high-quality sources (NBC News, Politifact, Pro Publica) with positive content citing lower-quality sources (Washington Times, Heritage Foundation, closely-paraphrased mission statements and press releases) which is not an appropriate way to "adjust" the POV.

Neutrality on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we give equal coverage to positive and negative views; it means that we proportionally represent all points of view that have been published by reliable sources. If folks feel that reliably-sourced points of view exist that are not covered here, feel free to add them, but please be sure that the sources are indeed reliable. I see zero justification for removing well-sourced negative content. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really delete anything in my recommended edit, only rearranged it, so it wasn't replaced. Please review the history, where you'll see my attempted edits to add more info have been reverted 3 times and my neutrality POV tag removed. One of my sources was Forbes, btw. Not reliable enough? Note editor comment above about one of the organization's directors being a BSer and a liar. Could that suggest a POV problem? Pkeets (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The article can't be improved if all attempts at expansion are immediately reverted. Rather than all the negative (and outdated) info covered in the article, I'd prefer to see it discuss the organization's court cases and resolutions. That would be more informative. Pkeets (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that some of the content was indeed rearranged and not removed. I don't think we should remove well-sourced negative content, but I have no objection to adding well-sourced information about legal cases that have received prominent RS coverage. Keep in mind that the article should be written to reflect what has been published by reliable sources, not what editors "prefer".

The Forbes article is a quality source, but it focuses on J. Christian Adams rather than PILF. It seems to me that the bit about Trump's Election Integrity Comission should be covered in the Adams article instead of here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That's not one of my edits. I took it out. Pkeets (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to make sure we're being accurate here, the Forbes sources describes the Civil Rights Commission appointment, not the Election Integrity Commission. The sentence was initially added by PKeets and sourced to PILF; PKeets later replaced the PILF source with Forbes. –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That's accurate. Whoever copied this paragraph from the Adams bio article included the Election Integrity Commission appointment. Like I said, the paragraph needed to be reworded, rather than copied wholesale. Both items should now be gone from the article. Pkeets (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I see the line about the EIC has been reverted. Why do you want it in there? It's about Adams and not the PILF. And why do you want that one and not the other appointment? Pkeets (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I see your comment about this in the edit. Many readers are not going to take it the way you expect. Pkeets (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Pkeets, see Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts. "Don't include information that is not covered later on." Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

I suggest adding the content about their 501 status and where they were incorporated "below the fold". The lead, which summarizes the body, can be fleshed out more after the body has been filled out. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you look back in the history to the revision I suggested? Please check in the history for 03:05, 20 September 2020‎, which revised and added additional information. Apparently there's resistance here to any revision of the article at all. Pkeets (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this version, the lead is sourced entirely to PILF's own descriptions of itself and does not reflect the body at all. When describing an organization, particularly a controversial one, we go with what reliable sources say about it rather than it says about itself. This version includes a good reliably-sourced lead, and I agree with the suggestion of mentioning nonprofit status in the body instead of the lead. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The version you prefer is negative in tone and poorly organized. Please help to rewrite it with better organization that includes more neutral info about the organization. Pkeets (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The tone of the lead is negative because the tone of the article is negative. This seems to reflect the general negative tone of reliable-source coverage of the organization. If you're aware of RS coverage that fits your point of view, please bring it to our attention. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a particular POV on the article, just surfed in and thought it needed some serious work. The reporting of only negative information on what a legitimate and successful non-profit accomplishes is NPOV, and means more work needs to be done to show what the organizations expects to accomplish. This is not a piddling little company; they bring in millions of dollars in donations every year, and it looks like they file a lot of lawsuits for transparency and provide briefs in support of rules, which would seem to be a good thing. It is clear they have published erroneous claims, but losing a lawsuit on that will probably tighten up their practices and procedures. Pkeets (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You're not bringing in a POV, but you're calling them "legitimate" and "successful" and assuming that their poor actions are things that are going to be changed. That sounds kinda like a POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

They are legitimately incorporated as a non-profit, and their mission statement and the details of their financial status are easily available online. Looking at these things to gauge their notability and how well they are accomplishing their goals is not POV. It's clear they needed to tighten up their fact checking and editing before publishing, but are you assuming they still won't do this after losing a civil lawsuit for defamation? The fact that you're objecting to this description of them does sound like POV. You'd prefer they were considered unsuccessful and illigitimate? Pkeets (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about them? –dlthewave ☎ 18:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Calling them legitimate depends on the definition of "legitimate" one is using; if one looks to "being exactly as intended or presented : neither spurious nor false", are they legitimately focused on "election integrity", or is their actual goal skewing elections? Calling them "successful" based on the money they brought in might be reasonable if they were a for-profit business, but it's an odd way to judge the success of a non-profit, which is generally assumed to be pursuing some other goal. And it is more than a mite optimistic to assume someone won't continue bad behavior after having been punished; recidivism is a thing... and what they've been sued over is only a fraction of the misinformation they've been said to spread. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over the accuracy of their research or possible recidivism or search around for glowing recommendations. This shouldn't be part of Wikipedia's job. The reports of false claims all remain there in the article as they were, and I've added the defamation lawsuit to update the info on how that proceeded. If you'd like to research that further, it might be an interesting addition to the article. Just because you don't like the organization or it's officers is no reason to do a shabby job on writing it up. A neutral POV will only report their activities and not express an opinion. Pkeets (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NatGertler, thanks for reviewing the paragraph imported from Adams' bio. The info you've removed was certainly awkwardly worded, and as you say, it implied Adams personally published the lists of voters. He didn't write the Washington Times article, but it is likely the PILF published the lists on their website in the section where they maintain reports on results of their research. They also apparently send out press releases on these reports, which would be where WT got the info. Presumably the voter info has been revised or removed as part of the settlement of LULAC v. PILF, and the publication is covered in the article paragraph on the lawsuit, so may need no further discussion. However, there is currently no mention of these reports in the article, which is where most of the organizations claims have been initially published. Shouldn't there be some discussion of this? Pkeets (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. This leaves a single paragraph in the Activity section about Adams, for no apparent reason other than to report his quotes. The organization has already been described as conservative, so I don't see any reason not to add something on the other officers and their background/activities. Mitchell, Eastman and von Spakovsky all have articles in Wikipedia to borrow from. Eastman looks fairly uninvolved, but Mitchell has been a longtime lawyer for the NRA, and von Spakovsky is a notable conservative activist. Pkeets (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A few quick notes:

• To answer earlier concerns: yes, the material that was copied from J. Christian Adams was attributed as such in the edit summary, which is an appropriate way of handling things..
• For many organizations, separating the individual from the group is easy. However, in this case, key portions of the mainstream coverage (such as the NBC News source) treat them largely as one and the same, with PILF as Adams's legal front. That makes it harder to pull apart, to not reflect his election-related views here. Certainly, if an article on PILF is raising Adams's views, thats an indication of relevance. It (and the filing status) may make more sense in a different section ("organization"?) rather than "activities".
• I have some particularly hectic days ahead, for yes, I have things to do other than Wikipedia. I may be slow to respond. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I can hang around for a while. I don't think there's any reason not to include Adams' views, but von Spakovsky looks pretty involved, too, and appears to write a lot of articles that publicize the organization. It might be worth giving him equal time as a representative of the foundation. Pkeets (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Activity section

Some of the paragraphs on voter eligibility here correspond word for word with the article on J. Christian Adams. Even if this is attributed, the wording should vary to avoid the indication of borrowing work. I strongly suggest they be rewritten. Pkeets (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We are fine borrowing from Wikipedia, as long as we attribute when we do. With attribution, it's not plagiarism. Wikipedia is meant to be borrowed from; that's why it's released under Creative Commons license. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

PILF is describing itself as an educational and legal group on their tax return, and I see other sources also list them this way. It's an easy way to get the 501(c)(3) status.Pkeets (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed "educational organization" from the infobox because it was unsourced and not mentioned in the article. Their tax return is not a reliable source but if you're aware of a good source that does describe them this way, feel free to add it. –dlthewave ☎ 14:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The categories "religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary ..." are the main categories the IRS has selected that nonprofits choose to apply for status. The fact that PILF chose "educational" is reflected omits tax return. A government document is a reliable source for non-controversial information such as tax status. "Educational" designations are not limited to schools and universities. If the IRS approved PILF under the educational category , it belongs in the infobox. Ihaveadreamagain 19:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The field is not for the tax status of the organization, but for what type of organization it is, for which tax status provides a poor definition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a list of types of organizations that are meant to be in that field, if just "nonprofit" or "501(c)(3)" "religious" or "educational" etc, are not descriptive enough. Ihaveadreamagain 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Tags

Ok, the content here is looking more balanced to me, and I've rerated it as Start Class. Are there any further comments? I'll leave the tags up for another week to see if anyone stops by to add comments, and then I'll assume the article suits everybody and remove them. Pkeets (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 report on ´lost mail-in ballots´

Epoch Times (considered an unreliable source) writes that PIFL reported fifteen million (blank) ballots that were mailed out were unreported as to their whereabouts. I don´t know if this is worth mentioning in the article, if it is verified that PILF said this. Ideas? kdammers {I can´t get the tildes to work.}

Lacking a good source, it's not due -- and it sounds like a pretty silly thing to worry about. Not everyone sends back their ballot, and given that there were places where every eligible voter was sent a mail ballot, and that about 1/3 of eligible voters didn't participate in 2020 (which is actually a very low non-participation % for US), it's hardly a surprise that many didn't get sent back. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)