Talk:Americans Elect

Original research

I'm rather concerned about the use of a lawsuit to back up some of the claims in the article. Reading a court decision is non-trivial and I should think seeing it as being applicable to a particular case (and saying a particular thing) is really a professional interpretation for a lawyer, not something we can include in Wikipedia. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We can find additional sources, but I think the suit is a key citation and not that hard to follow. Note that this is at the appeals level, so it carries more weight. WilliamKF (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of secondary news articles on this org.; I haven't seen one which takes to calling it a "non-partisan non-profit." Most call it a political party. The article seems to rely heavily on the website of Americans Elect and parrot its talking points and pedantry of organizational structure. No coverage has yet been included which is at all related to the bulk of the media coverage. I will accept that this is as much a NPOV issue as OR, but it is highly problematic at present. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are a number of secondary news articles referencing nonpartisan and nonprofit. None of these call it a political party nor cite the website as a source:

1. http://www.sunjournal.com/news/state/2012/01/26/cutler-americans-elect-gains-maine-ballot-access/1146260
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html
3. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/03/group_pushes_nonpartisan_third_party_ticket_in_12_111918.html
4. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-16/politics/30404690_1_ballot-access-signatures-kahlil-byrd

--Jphorowitz (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I added some formatting to your comment to make a response easier; I hope you don't mind. I came here due to a request on [[[WP:NORN]]. First, court cases cannot be cited as a source in this case, because statements people make in court are not vetted by an independent editorial agency (the very definition of a reliable source). In very rare cases, court cases can be cited as primary sources on the court case itself, but they certainly can't tell us whether or not this group is a political party or not.

Regarding the references you added, #1 explicitly says that its status as a non-profit is challenged. #2 is an Op-ed, and thus not a reliable source. #3 appears to be okay, though I'm not 100% certain of the source. #4 seems okay (I think CSM is meets WP:RS, but I'm not sure), but I will note that the descriptions of the group come primarily out of the mouth of the group itself. TeaDrinker, could you point out some of the sources that call this a party? I mean, to me, it's obviously a party--they're registering positions on a ballot. But, of course, we should focus on what sources say. In the meantime, the court case needs to be removed as a source. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The court case is at the appellate level so the issue of statements people make I do not think is an issue, unless you are concerned about statements made by the judges in their opinion. Rather than remove the cite, I think it should remain and be fortified with additional cites to other sources. I do feel this court case is very germane to this article given that it is only because of that ruling that AE can exist today without having to register at the federal level as a political party. Since they have not registered, they are by definition not a political party as far as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is concerned and not subject to its rules. States have their own rules and in some states AE does register as a political party in order to get on the ballot in that state. A distinction needs to be made here between the technical term of 'political party' with respect to the FEC and who it has oversight for and common everyday language use of 'political party'. AE is not a political party as far as FEC is concerned, but in everyday speech we may choose to label them as such. I believe at this point, the cites to AE's site have been minimized greatly and the article no longer heavily relies on AE and thus hopefully is no longer just parroting their position. WilliamKF (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be academic at this point, but I don't see why court opinions cannot be cited. There's nothing in WP:RS that indicates otherwise. TeaDrinker's concern seems to be that you have to be a lawyer to interpret a court decision. Not true, lay people can and do cite and interpret court opinions all the time. WP doesn't give legal advice so there's no reason why we would have to be lawyers. WilliamKF's concern is that statements people make in court are not vetted by an independent editorial agency ("the very definition of a reliable source"). Of course people can say whatever they want in court, and those statements are not reliable sources. But what a court says is reliable precisely because the court is independent. If the court parrots an assertion made by a party without qualification then the court has accepted that assertion as true. Just as would a journalist. But what a court says is even more reliable because the statement is usually made under oath, and the opposing party gets the public opportunity to rebut the statement. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well-sourced critique of media bias in favor of Americans Elect

The 1 Percent President; Americans Elect’s hypothetical ‘centrist’ candidate wins plaudits from pundits from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Extra!. 99.109.125.114 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed header of this section. Peter Hart does mention Occupy- and campaign finance-related objections to Americans Elect. But, notwithstanding the phrase "1 Percent" in the title, his article -- which was, after all, published in the monthly magazine of FAIR -- really is a much broader analysis of media bias. Johnlumea (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Americans Elect=Unity08?

I see that sources which refer to Unity08 are being used as if they refer to Americans Elect. For example, the Appeals Court decision on Unity08 is being used as if it referred to Americans Elect. But it's my understanding from reading the articles that they are legally separate. If so, we should avoid blurring the distinction and only use sources which talk about the subject of this article, Americans Elect.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Explaining my edits

I removed the reference to a certain political consulting firm being "controversial" as a violation of neutral point of view; see WP:LABEL. I also removed the reference to the AE team as being "diverse" because the sources provided for that sentence did not use that term and it appeared to be praise rather than a neutral comment. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary section?

Is the Association with Arno Political Consultants section necessary? The fact that there is an association with that group is irrelevant. 69.225.232.116 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the neutrality dispute?

I would like to remove the neutrality notice on the article, now when AE has ended its role in the 2012 election it could stay there for ever because no one really care. I have tried to figure out what the problem is so to fix it and have a nice little article about AE, but I cant seem to find the problem. Could the once with the problem please state it here so we can get it done and go on with other things. Thanks a lot Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded and I really cant see what it is I guess the contreversy has been solved and I am removing the tag. If anyone puts it up again please write here what the problem is. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no discernible neutrality dispute. The placement of the tag appears to have been a drive-by edit by someone who did not bother to provide a rationale for adding it.--JayJasper (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a case of:

Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly!--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Time To Thoroughly Revise This Article?

While considerable efforts have been undertaken to keep this article current via minor updates, I would suggest that recent events (AE's cancellation of its online nominating convention, failure to nominate a candidate, resignation of most of its Board members, dissolution of its state committees, and -- importantly -- its recent 180 degree turn toward partisan political advertising in support of non-AE candidates such as Angus King's independent senate bid) really require a more-or-less thorough revision of this article. AE's past identity as an online nomination process is now really of only historical (i.e., not current) interest, yet the lion's share of the current article is still devoted to the details of that now non-existant process, and a less-than-careful reader could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that Americans Elect is either (i) still a political party, or (ii) defunct...neither of which is the case. I would propose that much of the old discussion regarding the minutia of the online nomination process should be significantly condensed and relocated in the "History" section, and that the body of the article should now focus more on AE's current incarnation as a...um...hmmm...err...other kind of entity (I guess a political action committee in function, if not yet in law?). As one who has been helping to maintain this article, and as an active student of Americans Elect, I would be happy to undertake such a revision, but I don't want to tackle it without the benefit of prior feedback from the community. Please discuss.--AETransparency (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like this article is completely out of date, and perhaps too long considering the relative insignificance of the subject. Does the organization still exist? Poplicola76 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Americans Elect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415235223/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2012/04/13/1998998/americans-elect-secures-place.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/13/1998998/americans-elect-secures-place.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)