Talk:Institute for Justice

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale, etc., has been added to the image, as demanded by our robot masters. --12.38.2.160 (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his article, Entrepreneurs Under Attack,

This article reads like a company brochure. Lots of unsubstantiated puffery, e.g. "The Institute has been involved in numerous high-profile lawsuits. Particularly noteworthy cases include school choice lawsuits in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Arizona, and Florida." Dogweather (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a company brochure, and it should be tagged as such. Edit: after going over the sources, they're all from the company, I tagged it as Advert|article Jack mcdowell (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not un-tag the article unless it is made into an encyclopedic article. As it stands now it should be marked for speedy deletion, but it seems to be a somewhat relevant organization. Jack mcdowell (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that better references needed. Rounding up references now.James Cage (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added over 50 references, removed some SPS references, removed "directory" information, edited for NPV, many other additions and changes. James Cage (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the organization's positions on issues are criticized by those who do not share those positions. There are at least two sides to each of these issues (and in some cases several sides). If we attempt to cover the debate on each of the issues this organization is involved in, this article will quickly become very long, and duplicate material in other articles. In other words, the majority of this article will be redundant and not useful to readers. I suggest that any section on criticism of this organization focus on the organization's methods and ethics. I also suggest that debate about the issues be covered in the Wikipedia articles on those issues, for example,

The article makes way too much use of self-published sources. The sources need to be removed, and if other sources cannot be located, the material needs to be removed from the article. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to replace many references to the company site, and for information that is useful but not sourced elsewhere, note that it comes from the organization in the text of the article. For example, "According to the Institute for Justice, books commissioned and published by the Pacific Research Institute 'formed the Institute for Justice’s long-term, strategic litigation blueprint.'[Ref to web site]." In that way, I think I will eliminate about 10 of the references currently tagged with SPS, leaving about 3-4. Is that a good way to go? And if so, will it be enough to remove the tag on the article? Also, will it be enough to remove the SPS tag on the remaining 3-4 references? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed several references to the organization's web site, and to references to other web sites. Also deleted the section on Research. That hurt - I considered linking a bunch of references to articles that refer to publications by the organization, but decided that would give a complete section. All remaining references to the organization's web site are either noted in the text of the article ("According to the organization ..."), or are for information commonly referenced by web sites, or both. See change log for more details. Removed SPS tag on article.James Cage (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinked

Every instance of several wiki articles are linked. The first time needs to be linked, then the rest left plain. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - thanks! I edited the article to remove 14 instances of repeated links. I applied this to the text of the article, not the infobox. For example, the info box contains a link to the Wikipedia article about the president of the organization. The text of the article also has 1 link to that same article. This seems to be the common practice across all articles I have looked at (perhaps on the theory that someone who intends to read the entire article won't necessarily read the infobox). Is that best practice?James Cage (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed over-linked tag on article. James Cage (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead needs to be rewritten to comply with MOS guidance. It does not summarize the article, instead serving as an introduction. When it is rewritten, footnotes need to be removed from the lead and put into the body. GregJackP Boomer! 07:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks again for the feedback. James Cage (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the deleted links - here's my reasoning. The YouTube page is included for the same reasons as the subject's web site. It is, in effect, another web site for the subject. There is a YouTube template in Wikipedia for this reason. The Right Wing watch site is, without any question, biased. In my way of thinking, that's why it's a link instead of being included as a source. But if nothing else, it shows information about how the subject is viewed by those who oppose it. Long story short, I can see both sides of including the RWW link, but the YouTube seems to me to be entirely justified. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little research. Based on a quick Google search ("channel on YouTube" site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/), it appears that over 5000 pages are using the YouTube template that is in use here. I understand that does not necessarily justify this - there could be 5000+ bad examples - but I still can't see any real difference between including a link to a web site created and edited by the subject, and including a link to a YouTube channel that is created and edited by the subject. I looked into YouTube policy on Wikipedia several months ago, and there was no prohibition at that time. James Cage (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info on YouTube template - appears to be in use on 25,000 pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:YouTube James Cage (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this conversation, James.

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says "Normally, only one official link is included." I think the default official link to use is the group's website. Therefore, I think we shouldn't include YouTube, since we already have one official link. The Right Wing Watch link seems unduly biased to me, and more of an activist than academic type site, so I don't think it's particularly helpful to readers. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Good to talk with you! I can see your point about the RWW, and I also note that it's from 2006, so whatever value it might have had is outdated. Regarding the YouTube link -

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is certainly on point. There is a great big "Videos" link in the middle of the official web page. I checked a few non-profits (ACLU, Gates Foundation, Red Cross), and none of them are linking to the organizations' YouTube channels. Long story short, I'll re-remove the links. I appreciate the education on this! James Cage (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the organization describes itself as "The nation's only libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm." I believe "public interest" is the most neutral qualifier in that list - I see nothing in

the Wikipedia guidance on neutrality that would make me think that "public interest" is not neutral. Comparable organizations' articles (such as the ACLU) use terms like "non partisan," which are clearly debatable at least. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem with "public interest" is that it risks being read as value-laden, a sort of endorsement, even if that isn't the intent. The fact that conservative sources are using that term, especially IJ itself, but not mainstream sources, is evidence that this is a suspect term. Of course IJ is going to describe itself in the best possible light. The relevant portion of WP:NPV is

ACLU requires reliable sourcing itself. I added a {{citation needed}} tag.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Two thoughts. First, the term "public interest law firm" is also used in Easton's "Gang of Five" (page 261). Perhaps this should be used as a reference? To clarify that "public interest" is a commonly used term for a type of law, and not an advertising term, perhaps we could link this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#Public_interest_law. Thanks! James Cage (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevant contextual language from the Easton source? Can you share a sentence or two? I'm not at all comfortable with the link because the linked section and the main article, Public interest law) focus on a movement that has little to do with IJ's activities. These articles demonstrate that "public interest law" is closely associated with representing those in poverty and other vulnerable segments of society. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this will work, but give this a try:https://books.google.com/books?ei=QeQeVbnNFceUNofegLgN&id=PJt3AAAAMAAJ&dq=%22the+two-year-old+public+interest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22the+two-year-old+public%22. This should show the sentence from the Easton book. Regarding the section public interest law, I note this sentence (emphasis mine): "The term has grown, however, to encompass a broader range of activities of lawyers and non-lawyers working toward a multitude of objectives, including civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, and so on." (Consumer rights - example purchase of alcohol Supreme Court case) Many of the organization's clients are, if not poor, at least far less powerful than the business interests and governments that they believe are impinging on their rights. Thanks - good discussion. James Cage (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That looks like a reliable and mainstream source. I'd like to do a broader analysis of how mainstream sources are describing IJ, since we now have one using "public interest" and two not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. James Cage (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Schematica for finding several very reliable sources calling IJ a public interest law firm. I consider this issue settled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization and subsection headings of the "Litigation" section ("Economic Liberty," "Property Rights," "Free Speech," and "School Choice") are not

Well, I wrote it, so I don't feel it's editorializing in any way. :) Starting from the end, the line "Not all cases in this category involve business regulations" just shows that cases can overlap in the categories. The article clearly covers the organization's work to promote what it considers "free enterprise" (which the founders contrast with being "pro business"). And it is of course factual. Regarding the grouping of cases, the fact that the organization groups cases in this way informs the reader about how the group organizes itself, which I think is relevant to understanding the organization and the actions it takes. I disagree with reorganizing the section by case topic, as this would be unwieldy, difficult to keep current, and would necessarily leave large gaps in the presentation of what the organization does. For example, "Business regulations" and "Bone marrow transplants" would overlap, and a complete listing of case types that have received press coverage and influenced policy would be dozens, possible 100s of topics long. But given that I contributed to how this was structured, I do think that listening to more voices before deciding to act (or not act) is appropriate. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think readers care much about how IJ is organized. I think they care a lot more about its activities. If there is a desire to describe how IJ is organized that can be in a separate "Organization" section rather than in the "Activities" section. The fact that, by your own admission, you wrote this section to reflect what IJ is trying to promote, in the language that IJ considers appropriate, suggests to me that the current language is promotional rather than neutral.

As for your comment that a complete listing would be unwieldy, overlapping and require "possible 100s of topics," we do this sort of categorization and summarization every day at Wikipedia. IJ's activities can be divided into broad, informative categories. I'm not wedded to the ones I proposed. If there's some overlap, fine, and if there are some leftovers, fine. These concerns don't trump our obligation to write neutrally. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I didn't write this section to reflect what this organization is trying to promote. I didn't "admit" that. Let's avoid putting people on trial here - we are on the same team. The statement is factual, period. The organization of this section is (in my opinion) convenient, accurate, and adds to the understanding of the reader. I don't agree that readers won't care about how the organization is organized - that would invalidate a lot more of this article than just one sentence, as well as large portions of the articles on basically every organization on Wikipedia. I agree that activities are important - there is no conflict between the two. I could be wrong - I will "admit" that. :) Let's see what some other editors say about this. In the meantime, I understand that you are trying to improve Wikipedia. So am I - let's both keep that in the front of our minds. Thanks James Cage (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to put you on the defensive. You did say you wrote this section and that it "clearly covers the organization's work to promote what it considers 'free enterprise' (which the founders contrast with being 'pro business')." What I was clumsily trying to say is that we shouldn't be writing our "Activities" section to reflect what IJ is trying to promote or what it considers to be this or that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In the line you quoted, I was not referring to the organization of the article. I was referring to the sentence "Not all cases in this category involve business regulations". I think we can separate that sentence (and any other text you feel is distancing or appears to be editorial) from the discussion of the organization of this section. I believe that the way the Institute for Justice has organized their cases gives insight into their activities and adds to the understanding of the reader. There is no intent to reflect its promotion, and I don't agree that the current organization exists to help the organization promote itself or its ideas. I further don't agree that reorganizing would help the reader or make the article more neutral - that's our difference of opinion as I see it. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What drew me to this issue was some of the heading language that was used, e.g. "Free Speech" for a subsection that's about campaign finance and tour guide licensing. "Free Speech" misleadingly suggests IJ is some sort of ACLU/FSC-type organization. That's merely one specific example of how the current language is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be funny or argumentative, but IJ is an ACLU-type organization. And it's litigating in many of the same areas as the ACLU, including I believe the one you mentioned. To say that "free speech" applies to the ACLU's activities but not to IJ would be non-neutral. They both litigate in the same area (sometimes on the same side, sometimes on different sides), and it's not for me to say which one of them is really for "freedom" and which one isn't. James Cage (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I have no problem with the text saying such-and-such case involved free speech issues, or even saying something about how many of IJ's cases touch on free speech issues, but categorizing these cases under a "Free Speech" heading is like headlining Citizens United v. FEC as a free speech case--technically correct, but terribly misleading nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is similar to the "civil interest law" discussion. "Free Speech" and "Civil Interest" are categories of law practice, and the ACLU, IJ, and other organizations swim in those waters. Removing these terms would just make it harder for the reader to understand these organizations and how they relate to each other, particularly given that they are liberally applied in articles such as the ACLU Wikipedia entry. Good discussion -thanks. James Cage (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very informative to label Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett or the tour guide case as free speech cases. It's enough to explain that IJ argued that the regulations violated free speech rights--which is what the article does. By reorganizing the section we're not removing these terms, we're merely framing them in a more informative and disinterested way. (Btw, the tour guide case needs updating - the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the IJ's position.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Citizens United v. FEC. I think it's very clearly a free speech case, and not just technically so. It's a 1st Amendment case. Both sides claimed to be in favor of free speech. I think the section heading is misleading only if we decide that one side was fighting for freedom of speech and the other side wasn't. I think the same can be said for all the cases in this section. James Cage (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly take that position, but I doubt it would get much traction at Talk:Citizens United v. FEC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I want to know if a case is about free speech, I generally skip the talk page and go to the article itself, which in this case states that this is a 1st Amendment case and refers to freedom of speech thirty times. Hey, this section is getting unwieldy. I will write a summary of arguments for keeping this organization, and I encourage you to do the same for listing it topically, if you still believe that is appropriate. James Cage (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of “Keep Organization As-Is” position

The organization groups cases in this way. This is a fact, and this fact is referenced. This fact is important to the reader’s understanding of the organization, and of its activities. Example: grouping cases involving tour guides and cases opposing campaign financing of public elections into the category of “Freedom of Speech” is not intuitive. Knowing that IJ does this gives the reader insights into how it litigates, and why it litigates. Removing the categories, or changing the description by adding qualifiers that are not supported by references would remove valuable information from this article. Simply listing cases by topic (alphabetically?) would detract from understanding this organization, because the fact that the Institute for Justice believes that they are related is relevant to this article.

Does this organization ACTUALLY support freedom of speech? Is opposing public funding of elections in some cases actually a good thing for freedom of speech? We all have opinions about that, but this article is not about us or our opinions. It is about the Institute for Justice. By stating how the organization organizes its cases, we are not taking a position either way, which is entirely appropriate. James Cage (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to re-hash my position. I'll just point out that what you're describing as how IJ organizes its cases is actually how IJ describes its cases to the public. Well, not entirely, IJ describes its "Four Pillars" as "Economic Liberty," "Private Property," "School Choice," and "First Amendment," but we're fairly close to that. In any case, this is merely how IJ markets itself to the public. It might have a completely different way of organizing its cases internally, or to donors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four categories you list above do not appear in this article. The categories that do appear in this article are exactly how this organizes its cases to the public. As proof, please see the reference that appears after the sentence which reads, "It groups its cases into four areas: Economic liberty, property rights, free speech, and school choice." The referenced statement is clearly not intended to describe how this organization manages its filing cabinets.

To be clear, the way that a public interest law firm publicly defines the areas that it operates in, and publicly assigns its cases to those areas is important to understanding that organization and its activities. I will modify the sentence to read "It publicly groups its cases into four areas: Economic liberty, property rights, free speech, and school choice." Is this enough for you to remove the POV tag on your own? Can we add references or re-word this sentence to address your concerns, without removing factual, referenced, and important information from this article? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. I see these headings as something akin to IJ marketing-speak--I trust that is not your intent, but they come off that way to me at least. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the "Free speech" section heading is the one that disturbs DrF. Could it be rendered more balanced as "Free speech and election law" ? That seems to be accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step in the right direction, but I'm not comfortable with it. "Election law" is fine, I have no issue with that language beside that "campaign finance" is a touch more specific and informative, but I don't like "free speech." Calling these cases "free speech and election law" cases is like calling Citizens United a "free speech and election law" case. It's just not neutral. It's a campaign finance (or election law) case. Free speech is just the legal mechanism that was used to resolve it, and it's too closely associated with lots of totally unrelated cases (such as wearing a "Fuck the Draft!" jacket in the courthouse and all that). If someone asked you at cocktail party, "Hey, that Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett case, what was that about?" you wouldn't say it was a free speech case, you'd say it was a campaign finance case. The only people who might say it was a free speech case would be ardent opponents of campaign finance regulation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To provide another analogy, saying these are "free speech" cases is like saying a case about abortion is actually a due process case. Or a "due process and abortion" case, under Capitalsmojo's proposal. Technically accurate, but confusing and misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the section it seems the judges disagree with that assessment. They were ruling on free speech grounds, neh? "Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the law forced independent groups to face a choice: "trigger matching funds, change your message, or do not speak." Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Election law and free speech" or "Election law and First Amendment issues" be better headers? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Election law and First Amendment issues" would be more neutral. It's terribly awkward but I could live with it. Btw, as I noted, the "Free speech" heading was just an example of the neutrality problem. All of these issues would go away if we categorized the cases by more specific subject matter ("eminent domain" instead of "property rights," etc. etc.). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Property rights" sand "School choice" seem pretty standard. The other one...hmmm. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Property rights" and "School choice" are value-laden labels used by one side of these debates. (The labels used by the other side of these debates are "urban blight" and "education funding.") The neutral, non-value laden terms are "eminent domain" and "school vouchers." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Property rights" is a value-laden term? I have literally never heard that expressed. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you haven't. It's the standard rallying cry for libertarians who want less eminent domain and less land use regulation. (Notice how in a Google search for "property rights", the first three hits are the libertarian

Heritage Foundation. Our article on libertarianism lists property rights as one of 6 items under the "Philosophy" section.) In the eminent domain context, the government says, we need this land to address urben blight (in Kelo) or serve some other perceived public good. The land owner says, hands off, I have property rights. In that sense it represents only one side of the debate and is non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It does seem as though the "Free speech" sub-heading is the crux of this issue. Is it at all relevant that other articles have "Free speech" as sub headings, such as the ACLU article? Does having "Free speech" in that subject heading imply that Wikipedia is endorsing the activities of the ACLU? Would removing the section heading here imply that Wikipedia disagrees with the Institute for Justice? I would argue "No" for the first, as "Free speech" is a category of law practice, one that the ACLU self-describes as important to that organization. I would argue that changing the category in the IJ article would be non-neutral for exactly the same reason. We are here to describe the IJ. We have no golden lasso that allows us to judge its sincerity. (And if we did, I don't know how to use "Lasso of Truth" as a reference - this may in fact be impossible.)

We could change the name of this section heading - but do we have references for new section names? Again, the article clearly demonstrates, with references, that the section headings are simply the categories that this organization uses. In any case, this article is about the Institute for Justice, and not the issues that it litigates. James Cage (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ACLU's "free speech" practice is completely different from IJ's "free speech" practice - the ACLU's practice conforms much more closely with the average reader's expectation of what "free speech" generally means. In any case,

we shouldn't get too hung up on keeping the IJ and ACLU articles consistent--consistency shouldn't a a barrier to improving both articles. And, I'm certain we can find reliable sources associating these cases with labels such as "eminent domain" and the other categories I've proposed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Value-laden Terms: Not sure what the best practice is for replying to a discussion in the middle of a text block, so I called it out here. Regarding this comment by Dr F.: "'Property rights' and 'School choice' are value-laden labels used by one side of these debates. (The labels used by the other side of these debates are 'urban blight' and 'education funding.')" Note that Wikipedia has separate articles on "Property Rights" and "Urban Blight", so they are not the same issue. Wikipedia has an article on "School Choice," but no article on "Education Funding." An attempt to change the labels in the IJ article will, necessarily, change the meaning. Terms like "Property rights," "Free speech", etc. may be value-laden, but this is a public interest law firm working in value-laden areas. Using value laden terms is unavoidable, and should not be avoided if these terms are used by the organization to describe its activities.

The effort to change these section headings seems to be completely based on the belief that members of this organization (and other who agree) are only using free speech as an excuse to oppose campaign finance laws. (With similar beliefs for the other areas mentioned.) The people who claim to support free speech in this way are therefore lying. This is clearly a non-neutral judgment, and basing changes on this judgmental belief will yield non-neutral and inaccurate results. The converse is NOT true - using a section heading like "Free speech" does NOT imply that most of these people (or in fact any of these people) are sincere. These are simply the words they use to describe their activities. Even if we knew they are lying (we don't), that would not give us the right to change the words they use, or to put words in their mouths that we find more agreeable. We can't take away someone else's right to use words. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a fundamental disagreement over how

WP:NPV is to work. The process of creating articles of neutral tone and language necessarily requires the input of editors' subjective perceptions. We arrive at neutral, disinterested language by sharing those perceptions and coming to some mutual understanding of them. Please trust me that I do believe IJ considers itself to be fighting for freedom and free speech. But that doesn't mean our article should adopt that perspective. The precise goal here, as for any WP article, is to present the material in a way that an a neutral, independent third party would, and specifically not how the subject of the article (or its opponents) would (unless the two are the same, of course). Pardon the strong language, but I honestly think your approach is fundamentally incompatible with the community's NPV standard. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Combining my response to your last two comments: I respect your opinion, but I disagree. The fact that IJ's perspective on "Free speech" may be different than the average reader's expectation is exactly why that term should be used here. This article cannot inform the reader about IJ's perspective on free speech if we are not allowed to use the words "Free speech." Censoring their words is not neutral and does not lead to a neutral article. Thanks again - good discussion. James Cage (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at loggerheads. DR? RFC or NPOVN? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just making up words! Just kidding. We could leave this for a week or two, and see what other editors contribute to this discussion. Or take one of the other routes on your list. I will leave this up to your judgement. James Cage (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait a week. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait - here's an idea. The "Property Rights" sub-section starts with this sentence: "The organization's litigation in the area of private property rights includes cases involving perceived abuse of eminent domain and civil forfeiture." Would something similar at the start of the "Free Speech" subsection address your concerns? I believe that the first sentence in the Litigation section demonstrates that these are the IJ's definition of these terms, but perhaps a clarification would help. I've added this sentence, "The Institute for Justice's litigation in this area involves what it considers limitations on political and commercial speech." Does this clarify that IJ uses these terms in a way that may not be what the reader might have expected? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This type of language is equivalent to a {{

POV-section}} tag. It signals to the reader that the material that follows isn't neutral--but it still doesn't absolve us of the duty to make the material neutral. So, I support the inclusion of this language in the interim, despite its redundancy with the existing tag, but not as a long-term solution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't agree, but I see they do fall into

WP:WEASEL. I will undo this edit. I will plan to change the sentence in the Property Rights section, but I will wait until this disagreement is resolved. Are you asking that only the section headings be removed, or are you also proposing that we delete the quote at the beginning of the Litigation section? In other words, would we state how the organization groups its cases, then present the cases in alphabetical order? Or remove a quote and the information it contains? Or would we reword the subject organization's quotation because we don't like the words they used? Thanks - James Cage (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I was unclear. The indirect quote I refer to is the sentence that starts, "It publicly groups its cases ..." and not the one that begins "According to the organizatin ..." James Cage (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on school choice and school vouchers. These topics are relevant to the section on education reform. I have added a link to "school choice" (in quotes, to show this term was not viewed as neutral - see discussions above) to the text of the article. Given the organization's Supreme Court litigation, I felt that including "school vouchers" in the section heading was appropriate. James Cage (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording to match the consensus, above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the consensus and am against the use of "school choice" for two reasons. First, the term appears to be non-neutral, as the top two hits in a Google web search are to the

Friedman Foundation and National School Choice Week, two political advocacy groups, and most of the hits in a Google News search are to op-eds and a handful of right-leaning media outlets. Mainstream reliable sources overwhelmingly use "school vouchers." Second, the term "school vouchers" is more specific and informative; as our article on School choice explains, school vouchers are a subset of school choice, and as far as I can tell all of the cases IJ has worked on in this area are about school vouchers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any acceptable way to link to the Wikipedia article on school choice? It is not the same as vouchers (separate article). Organization has litigated cases regarding tax credits as well. James Cage (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP, just to be clear, I believed that the consensus had to do with the section sub-headings in the litigation section, and not the text of the article itself. I believe this is a real distinction, as there is a real "school choice" movement. It includes real activities (including activities such as tax credits) not covered by vouchers. It merits a separate article in Wikipedia, and not just a re-direct of "school vouchers" or some other article. DrFleischman, I believe you recommendations have now been followed completely. Do you feel that the neutrality warning can now be removed? If so, feel free.

We've created an article about the Institute for Justice that does not contain the phrase "school choice." I had to write that down - frankly, I'm stunned. I understand that this conforms to some view of neutrality, but I regret that we have eliminated factual information, and links to a real movement that exists in the real world, for the sole reason that we don't like the phrase that they use to describe their efforts. I understand that you don't agree, but I wish someone would explain why there is a separate article on our project, if the movement is in fact just a misnomer. Best regards, James Cage (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither case dealt with school choice, per se. It dealt with the use of vouchers, in other words, tax dollars to send children to religious schools (or public schools). The other case dealt with the use of school tax credits, sort of a vouchers in reverse. However, there is nothing on magnet schools, charter schools, homeschooling, etc., all of which make up portions of school choice. Finally, the term is POV, in that it has become a euphemism for using tax dollars to send children to schools where they will not be taught science, but will be taught religious dogma instead. Now, if that is what IJ stands for, it would be better to come out and say it rather than couch it in a euphemism. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a reliably sourced statement explaining IJ's involvement in the school choice movement or describing IJ as an advocate for school choice. What I have a problem with is describing these cases as school choice cases. That's a subtle but important distinction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.James Cage (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this week ij argued another case before the supreme court. timbs v indiana, which is likely to win, argues for incorporation of the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment to the states via the 14th amendment.

when it wins, this will open the floogates for ij and their ilk to challenge fines against poor people, which they have been doing in places like fergueson missouri. win or lose, this is a case that will get taught in every 1l constitutional law class. will need links to wiki articles on incorporation octrine, barron v baltimore, etc. http://ballots.blogspot.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-court-appears-ready.html 50.90.158.23 (talk)gtbear at gmail —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

My name is John Kramer. I’m the Vice President for Strategic Relations at the Institute for Justice.

I have studied Wikipedia pages related to the work of the Institute for Justice, specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Justice. In the next month or so, I would like to work with a Wikipedia editor to offer some suggested updates to this page.

As required by Wikipedia standards, I want to ensure I am:

·        Being transparent about my role at the Institute for Justice,

·        Suggesting only factual edits—not making suggestions that are opinions,

·        Offering neutral third-party sources/links to verify each of the updates I’m suggesting, and

·        In the rare instance where the Institute for Justice is the only source of the information shared (such as the number of employees within our organization), I’ve provided you with a link to our website where that information can be verified. Lyrical42 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three examples (among others) of edits I would like to suggest:

Lyrical42 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 30-JUN-2023

  Unable to implement  

• Your edit request could not be implemented because the provided references are not formatted correctly.
  WP:CITEVAR
  .) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo  20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to deny edits that would be improvements because they would not be perfection. It is also inappropriate to basically make it so only editors with deep experience and knowledge of editing of Wikipedia be listened to when requesting edits. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

As previously noted, I have a declared COI as I work at the Institute for Justice.

Here are suggested edits to the page’s “Commercial regulation” subsection that will improve it accuracy and bring it up to date.

==

Under the “Activities” section under “Litigation,” it would be more accurate to change the “Commercial regulation” subsection title to “Occupational licensing.”

Why?

Because IJ does not get involved generally in “commercial regulation” generally but, instead, focuses more narrowly in the area of government licensing of occupations.  Therefore, it would more accurate and descriptive of IJ’s work to use the headline “Occupational licensing” here.

In addition, the initial link in that subsection is quite dated; it is from a story that ran in 2014. A great deal of independent reporting and research has been done on this issue over the ensuing decade. Here are three much more recent independent news stories (with footnotes in their proper form) for you to consider using as updated links, each of which feature the latest research on the issue:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/state-licensing-requirements-cosmetologists-landscape-architecture/673196/ FOOTNOTE: Demsas, Jerusalem (February 24, 2023). “Permission-Slip Culture is Hurting America”. The Atlantic. Retrieved September 15, 2023.

https://reason.com/2023/03/27/how-bad-are-your-states-occupational-licensing-requirements/ FOOTNOTE: Tuccille, J.D. (March 27, 2023). “How Bad Are State’s Occupational Licensing Requirements? Reason. Retrieved September 15, 2023.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/02/27/who-benefits-who-loses-from-the-occupational-licensing-system FOOTNOTE: Sutherland, Paige; Chakrabarti, Meghna; and Skoog, Tim (February 27, 2023). “Who Benefits, who loses from the occupational licensing system?” WBUR. Retrieved September 15, 2023. Lyrical42 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your first request, the terms Commercial regulation and Occupational licensing appear to describe the same thing, in that occupational licensing is a commercial regulation. I would need a better reason why this should be changed. With regards to your second request, the three sources you provided appear to all be editorials, which are generally not usable in Wikipedia, per

WP:RSEDITORIAL. The link that is dead can still be used for now, but I would suggest checking to see if the link has already been archived at Archive.org Regards,  Spintendo  21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It is understandable that you might not appreciate the myriad government regulations that can be imposed on businesses and how they differ.  Although, as I stated, the Institute for Justice litigates against occupational licensing, it does not litigate in general against government-imposed “Commercial regulation” in a host of other areas, for example:

·       Environmental Regulations: Control emissions, waste disposal, and resource usage.

·       Health and Safety Standards: Ensure workplace safety for employees and customers.

·       Taxation Rules: Govern income, sales, property, and other taxes that businesses must pay.

·       Import and Export Regulations: Control the international movement of goods.

·       Intellectual Property Laws: Protect patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

·       Anti-Discrimination Laws: Prohibit discrimination in hiring and workplace practices.

·       Food Safety Regulations: Ensure the safety and quality of food products.

·       Immigration Regulations: Determine rules for hiring foreign workers.

·       Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations: Set safety and health standards for various industries.

·       Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Regulate employer-sponsored retirement plans.

·       Export Control Laws: Restrict the export of sensitive technologies and products.

·       Intellectual Property Enforcement: Lawsuits and penalties for IP infringement.

·       Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage Regulations: Govern the handling of dangerous substances.

·       Clean Air Act Regulations: Control air pollution emissions from businesses.

·       Affordable Care Act (ACA) Compliance: Mandate healthcare coverage for certain employers.

·       Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Require unpaid leave for eligible employees.

·       Truth in Lending Act (TILA): Ensure transparency in lending practices.

·       Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Rules: Govern aviation safety and operations.

·       Import Tariffs and Duties: Taxes on imported goods.

·       Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Rules: Oversee the energy industry.

·       Social Security Contributions: Mandate employer and employee contributions to the social security system.

·       Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Regulations: Ensure mine safety and health standards.

·       Agricultural Regulations: Oversight of farming and agricultural practices.

·       Federal Reserve Regulations: Regulate financial institutions and monetary policy.

This is a relatively short list, but with a little digging, I could provide literally thousands of other examples of areas of “Corporate regulation” IJ does not litigate.  So, in this context, my suggested edit to this section of the Institute for Justice Wikipedia page—changing “Commercial regulation” to “Occupational licensing” improves the page’s accuracy. Lyrical42 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]