Talk:Goldwater Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I worry about the section on lawsuits, which speaks of "Currently...." Wikipedia should not be a news service account of an organization---"today," "yesterday," or even "currently"---but should focus on facts and matters that are not ephemeral. Wait for the conclusion of "two cases," and then summarize what already has transpired. This should not be a place for press releases.verify 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Verify

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] NPOV issues

Concerning the edit and flame war you are engaged in on the Goldwater Institute article. I am suggesting to all parties that they take a step back and breathe (and while you are doing that, take a look at WP:CIVIL). I suggest that rather than continue arguing via edit comments, you all take your issue to the discussion page and decide how you can create an article that conforms to WP:NPOV. If that fails, I suggest you consider seeking arbitration for your dispute. Good day. Trusilver 03:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not a flame war, just one person who wants to add "conservative" to describe Goldwater. My post asked for help editing a section which may be considered POV that I added, advice about a flame war which does not exist was not requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.17.2 (talk)

Whether or not it was "requested" is irrelevant. When you begin making uncivil comments in your edit summaries you have become disruptive and that needs to be addressed. I think it's time for the lot of you to take your issues here and work out a consensus rather than engage in an unproductive edit war. Trusilver 05:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no uncivil comments, give it a rest.

[edit] Removed

The following was removed:

However, its director of constitutional litigation and director of fundraising are both affiliated with the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign ^{[citation needed]}.

This, odd, criticism does not fit well with the section. To make matters worse, the author of the sentence does not realize there is a difference between the think tanks position and individuals who work for the think tanks personal opinions. All Goldwater Institute employees do not agree with one another on all issues, just as not all teachers love big government and the teachers unions. Give it a rest... this sentence was a half-asked attempt at criticism. It should remain deleted.