Talk:Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Funding/support from Koch family foundations

If the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has received funding and support from the Koch family foundations, which it has, why is this fact not mentioned in the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I added a funding section same as most other think tank pages here at wikipedia. If you have references showing direct funding that is where they would go. ContentEditman (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group?

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is clearly a conservative organization. I know they want to be called a "free market" organization but there are lots of references saying and supporting them as a conservative group. The 4 references at the top, 3-4-5-6, trying to support the "free market" only one the first kinda does that but also supports calling it conservative when it says "While the Mackinac Center is not listed among the project’s official advisory board of more than 100 conservative organizations, Jason Hayes, the think tank’s director of energy and environmental policy is a contributor." and also "Mackinac Center receives funding “from a variety of conservative and corporate sources...". The 2nd reference is just a listing page listing what the Mackinac organization says about itself. Its not a story or support of that title. The 3rd reference is just a university lusting page, similar to above, and has not author or support for the title. And the 4th is the Mackinacs own page and should not be used. Esp when so many other references calls them Conservative.

But there are many references calling them a Conservative organization with ties to other Conservative groups. This reference it titled "Conservative ‘Think Tank’ Mackinac Center has a To Do List for Michigan’s next leaders" and says "It has often been described as Conservative, and generally believes less regulation of everyday life and of business is a good thing.". This clearly states and supports the Conservative title for the Mackinac group.

This reference states "WHEN references to the Mackinac Center crop up in Michigan's mainstream media, the nonprofit organization is consistently referred to as a "conservative, free-market think tank."" and "Privatization of government functions has long been a keystone of conservative thought. The Mackinac Center is no exception, publishing dozens of articles in the past eight years on privatizing everything from prisons to water treatment plants.". This one not only shows they are a conservative group but points out many other media groups refer to them the same.

This reference it titled "Exposing Those Far-Right Propaganda "Think Tanks"" and talks about "Conservative think tanks patterned after the highly successful Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise institute..." including the Mackinac group and others aligned with them.

This reference says " The Mackinac Center spokespeople have said they will not disclose their contributors; however, a little research reveals an extensive list of donors. For example, The Devos, Prince, Koch and Dow families, all associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party", "the Herrick Foundation has consistently donated to the Mackinac Center and the Cato Institute, conservative organizations that support the Republican Party.", and "Right refers to the conservative, right-wing way of thinking." clearly stating they are not independent and tied to other Conservative groups.

There are also other references I did not use, as I thought the above was plenty if not overkill, such as these that also support the Conservative title.

New York Times says of them "Joseph P. Overton introduced the concept in the 1990s as an executive at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan."

It's titled "Teachers are getting targeted anti-union emails from conservative groups" and talks about several conservative groups including the Mackinac group as one of them.

says this group is right-center and describes that as "These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes.".

that starts of by saying "The Mackinac Center for Policy Research is the largest conservative state-level policy think tank in the nation. It was established by the state's leading conservative activists to promote conservative free market, pro-business policies." and goes on to add "The Mackinac Center‟s Board of Directors reflect its conservative Republican roots."

Says "the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank based in Midland, Michigan that also receives funds from Charles Koch. Mackinac is a member of the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of conservative, Koch-backed nonprofits that coordinate as they lobby to cut taxes and regulations."

says "Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, but the effort also includes contributions from a handful of Michigan conservatives and institutions, such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Hillsdale College and Michael Anton, a lecturer at the private school."

There are others as well but I think there was already over kill on the references for support them being a conservative group, one being used to try and support calling them "Free Market", and the above add more to that as well. Paging @Iljhgtn since you seem to believe conservative does not fit for them for some reason. ContentEditman (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• I will try and address all of your points here. This may take time, so please be patient as we work through this.

First off it does not matter what any particular organization "wants to be called", we need to rely on the reliable sources, consider WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, and then also consider weight considerations etc., all of that matters, but not what they supposedly want to be called.

Second, you quoted one source as saying, "While the Mackinac Center is not listed among the project’s official advisory board of more than 100 conservative organizations, Jason Hayes, the think tank’s director of energy and environmental policy is a contributor." and also "Mackinac Center receives funding “from a variety of conservative and corporate sources.." That does not call them conservative. Receiving funding from or being affiliated with "conservative" groups or entities does not make you conservative, what does, is reliable sources repeatedly and consistently calling you as such, and even then we need to consider if there are other reliable sources making a counter claim, in which case we can evaluate the claim in that context.

On to your provided "sources":

The first one does not appear to be reliable, "Moodys on the Market" appears to be a local newletter from a local marketing firm (also without author or publisher)!!! Not exactly the gold standard that we are looking for in terms of how to describe any particular think tank, so I hope you are not using sources like this across other think tank pages or that would be a big problem. It says on the link, "A local service of Mid-West Family" and then if you click further it says, "Mid-West Family is Southwest Michigan's media and marketing leader. We help area businesses find their authentic voice. You will reach more customers, create stronger connections, and achieve greater advertising results using our many communication platforms." That is NOT a reliable source!

Next you provided an old source which required the "Wayback Machine" and seems to be a piece from a Detroit source, a more modern Michigan posted source does not use the "conservative" label, but rather sticks to the "free market" label most often and widely applied by numerous reliable sources. Also, the source you used had 4,081 words and only a passing mention of anything resembling calling them "conservative" at that.

Your next source, other than using inflammatory rhetoric not found elsewhere, is also completely unreliable for use. When we look into that source it describes itself as, "...a charitable educational enterprise designed to support efforts both within North America and worldwide to develop and improve light rail transit (LRT) and other rail transit and mass transportation systems", plus the source again only mentions MCPP in passing and grouped in with many other Think Tanks, thus there is no direct mention of MCPP as "conservative" even in this source!

The next source talks about affiliations of supposed donors to the MCPP which state that the donors or funding sources are "conservative", but there is again no direct mention of "conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy." It is possible to take funding from both conservative and progressive sources and that does not necessarily make an organization one or the other. Again, we need reliable sources specifically calling the MCPP "conservative" as the direct label of the organization, and then it would need to be in sufficient weight to merit inclusion in the lead based on a broad and consistent label being applied by the majority of said sources.

This source is WP:GUNREL and cannot be relied upon, "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings."

Next you provided a source which is affiliated directly with a fully deprecated source SourceWatch, "As an open wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the Center for Media and Democracy." This cannot be used...

Source 10 you claimed called MCPP "conservative", but if we look at the text of the source it actually says, "Project 2025 is led by the Heritage Foundation, but the effort also includes contributions from a handful of Michigan conservatives and institutions, such as the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Hillsdale College and Michael Anton, a lecturer at the private school." Here it is not clear if the source is calling MCPP "conservative" or simply an "institution" and then labeling "Michael Anton" the "conservative."

Also, this same source in another article calls MCPP "free market".

This source is in no way reliable. This would be like Pepsi saying "Coca Cola is bad. Do not drink it." Of course they would say that! MEA is a labor union which has been involved in lawsuits with MCPP (as you can read about in this article). Generally, the written thoughts of a labor union, if not covered in a secondary source, would not by themselves constitute a reliable source... especially when discussing a direct critic!

The NY Times source is indeed reliable, but again now WP:DUE and weight factors are at play because this source only mentions the "conservative" label once, and in passing. The PBS source says, "National unions and state affiliates have been quick to highlight that many of these organizations receive funding from prominent conservative donors", but again there we are left with the MCPP themselves only being bundled in with other organizations as one recipient of many that has supposedly received funds from "conservative donors", and that by itself does not make the MCPP themselves "conservative."

On the other hand, most reliable sources consistently instead use the "free market" label including: The Guardian ("free-market group" or "free-market think tank"), NBC News ("...free-market think tank..."), Fox Business ("...free market think tank..."). Additionally, many other sources also use the "free market" label exclusively and I will list out some here, though debatably some are not of the utmost reliability similar to sources you provided: MichiganAdvance, Legal News, AEI, The Center Square, BridgeMI, and the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) also prominently describes MCPP as a "free market think tank..."

I think I will stop there for now.. Though there is much more supporting "free market" over "conservative" as a label for MCPP, regardless of "what they prefer" as an organization. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's quite easy to find sources calling Mackinac Center conservative, free market, and libertarian. It's also easy to find sources that don't label it at all. IMO, "free market" is most appropriate because it encompasses both conservative and libertarian. Marquardtika (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A good point. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do you see that "free market" = conservative and libertarian? I have never heard it described that way. ContentEditman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Most neutral (per WP:VOICE) is to note various descriptions in proportion to use in generally reliable sources and academic journals of high quality. More than one description can be given. Llll5032 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is why I had left the first line descriptor as "Conservative free market" as I thought that was more neutral for the opening even though there are a lot more references saying Conservative. ContentEditman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do you see more "more supporting "free market" over "conservative""? In all your writing you added no support for "free market" and dismissed most of the references I added as "undue" even though I do not think it says what you think it does. It literally goes over neutrality and says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;". I have listed a lot more reliable references easily calling them Conservative and you have not added even one truly supporting "free market" . ContentEditman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on is The Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group and policies of inclusion of such description.

This a request for comment on the above question and previous section. Is the Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group and should be described as such? And does the polices listed above overrule the more widely available references describing their relationships and them as Conservative vs Free-Market? ContentEditman (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bad RFC, "And does the polices the editor above is using overrule the more widely available references describing their relationships and them as Conservative vs Free-Market?" directly inserts your own heavily biased opinion into the question of the RFC, thereby making the RFC a WP:BADRFC and not WP:RFCNEUTRAL.

Here is an example of a Neutral RFC: This a request for comment on the above question and previous section. Is the Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative or Free-Market group, and which (or both) should be used in the lead?

Feel free to share your Wikipedia:Reliable sources either way. Penguino35 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sources already heavily show that "free market" or "free-market" is the much more WP:COMMONNAME applied to this group, and that even if the other label "conservative" is used, it is much, much, much less common to the point where placing it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE when WP:WEIGHT considerations are factored. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". RS may use "free market" more than "conservative", or vice versa, but noting that the organization is also sometimes described the alternative way may be due if careful references are made to enough reputable sources: specifically, to listed WP:GREL sources, academic journals of high quality, and books of repute. I agree that the RFC proposal must be edited to be neutral per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Llll5032 (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And what sources are you referring to? The overwhelming majority of them call them conservative. Only ones that call them free market is themselves and others that copy their page/descriptor. ContentEditman (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of hearsay regarding what sources do or do not say, and no listed citations. Penguino35 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I exhaustively covered this at great length above in the comment which began, "I will try and address all of your points here. This may take time, so please be patient as we work through this." Please read that in full if you have any questions. It would be tedious to rehash all of that given that if anyone wishes to read about all of the sources saying "free market" over conservative they can simply scroll up. You will find that this POV pushing editor @ContentEditman does not have a case and is using many non-reliable sources in advancing his invalid claim but is persistent nonetheless in doing so. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Penguino35. It would be helpful to group references for each description in this discussion. Citations for each description with "footquotes" (the quote field within citations) for context would be helpful. Sources should be of high quality, no self-published blogs or social media. Llll5032 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am just saying that all of the sources at hand were addressed in the comment right there above. I'll really parse things out again if need be, but it is all right there above... Every source addressed, every false claim by ContentEditman debunked. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I posted 10 above, 4 more in the article itself, such as...

[5] New York Times - says of them "Joseph P. Overton introduced the concept in the 1990s as an executive at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan." [2] Metrotimes - "WHEN references to the Mackinac Center crop up in Michigan's mainstream media, the nonprofit organization is consistently referred to as a "conservative, free-market think tank."" and "Privatization of government functions has long been a keystone of conservative thought. The Mackinac Center is no exception, publishing dozens of articles in the past eight years on privatizing everything from prisons to water treatment plants.". [8] mea-retired - "The Mackinac Center for Policy Research is the largest conservative state-level policy think tank in the nation. It was established by the state's leading conservative activists to promote conservative free market, pro-business policies." and goes on to add "The Mackinac Center‟s Board of Directors reflect its conservative Republican roots." [6] pbs - "Teachers are getting targeted anti-union emails from conservative groups" and talks about several conservative groups including the Mackinac group as one of them. Thats just a few as I stopped looking after as there are plenty that show they are part of or just out right called "conservative". I'm still waiting for other sources that are not themselves callign them free-market much more or at all vs conservative. ContentEditman (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

ContentEditman, can you insert references with links to the Wikipedia articles for each of the sources in this list? Llll5032 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand? Do you mean post the reference links here? ContentEditman (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can add such links within your comment with the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You may copy and paste the linked refs that you used in the previous discussion for those four sources, if you wish. Llll5032 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)