Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Funding Sources 2 3RR 3 501 c(3) 4 Biased Edits

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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