Talk:Goldwater Institute

Untitled
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

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.

Removed
The following was removed:
 * However, its director of constitutional litigation and director of fundraising are both affiliated with the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.

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.

Some material
Material was rm on salaries. While there is nothing wrong in reporting them, they should have come to media's attention, not just some pov writers. Inserting on that account is WP:OR. Salary increases have nothing to do with COL in Arizona. That was pure pov. Nor is the institute an "Arizona" institute. It is an organization which happens to be headquartered there. But Arizona doesn't "own" it per se. Student7 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

affliated persons
There should be links worked in, linking to Stephen Slivinski and Byron Schlomach (currently bluelinks) and perhaps also to Nick Dranias (currently a redlink). The latter was a wikipedia article, was deleted subsequent to AFD discussion Articles for deletion/Nick Dranias. I kept a copy of the article here in this version. My copy or another version that anyone could obtain by request from any administrator, could be used in developing a new article on Nick Dranias. If that is done, i'd suggest doing it in userspace, and being sure to include more secondary coverage to address AFD concerns, before moving to mainspace. Good luck with this Goldwater Institute article. -- do ncr  am  18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)