Talk:Pacific Justice Institute

Neutrality
This article is pretty clearly non-neutral. The selection of court cases only includes cases where the Pacific Justice Institute has been successful, or where the verdict in the case has been intentionally omitted (presumably because the case was lost). The language used throughout the article includes phrases such as "anti-Christianity efforts by local government" and other sentiments that portray the Pacific Justice Institute as the champion of religious freedoms and government as the big, evil oppressor of the people's rights. The article also uses several citations in support of its claims that come directly or indirectly from the Pacific Justice Institute. Matt18224 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's a pervasive promotional POV throughout the article. Much cleanup will be needed, but for now, I'll mark the more partisan or outright self-published sources so better sources might be found. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any edits to the "Selected cases" section, but I moved the dispute tag to that section after partially cleaning up the intro and other sections. If there are any remaining POV issues outside that section, please revert my tag move with my apologies. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I don't see any reason for two separate "Selected cases" and "Involvement in other issues" sections. The only difference between them seems to be that "selected" is promotional and "other" isn't. Maybe merge the sections together, then sort them by topic, such as LGBT issues, public participation, education, religious practice, other church/state separation issues? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * TIME TO REMOVE THE NOTICE? I've checked lots of references and made lots of edits to try to have a neutral POV. I've looked for other cases to add, but cannot find additional ones from reliable sources. Most are just published in smaller religious websites. Ihaveadreamagain 20:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Notable Cases section still seems not NPOV to me. Some of the cases don't seem notable compared to other cases PJI lost which are not mentioned (e.g., PJI's loss on appeal of the CA ban on conversion therapy, PJI's loss on California’s School Success and Opportunity Act, or AB1266). I see these are mentioned in another section along with other cases, which calls the neutrality of the Notable Cases section into question. Michaplot (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fix for cases being included that are not as notable as losses would be to add the losses rather than delete anything. I am loathe to delete a case if it actually occurred. Ihaveadreamagain 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these "notable" cases, in the sources provided and searches on my own, do not have sufficient coverage. In most cases the group is barely mentioned. If these cases themselves were notable by our evidentiary standards (i.e. the low bar of being notable enough for their own article), that would be a bit different. But these cases do not appear to be capital-N notable on their own merits and as indicated, serve little more purpose than to act as a resume for this group. We don't give free PR. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Article blanking
Editor Etzedek24 blanked most of the article (25,542 characters) and replaced it with a "Controversy" section sourced to the known partisan group SPLC. And Youtube. Which of course is not reliable. They appear to be engaged in a slow edit war in an attempt to enforce the blanking and replacement. – Lionel(talk) 10:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lionel, before you get all suspicious and POV-y, maybe read what is written in the section above. It's about sourcing and notability/noteworthiness. I agree with them that there is WAY too much promotional resume-style coverage in here. "Partisan group"--sure, whatever. But YouTube? Please provide evidence, if you are blaming Etzedek24 of any disruptive editing or violations of our policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative recently removed, I believe, every edit I made to this page. He said I engaged in puffery and I did not properly describe my edits. I apologize for not properly describing my edits; I was not fully aware of the guidelines.

Nevertheless, I think I added valuable information to the page, such as the number of employees and a photo of the organization's founder. Adding subcategories for Positions and Activities, I think, helped make finding information easier. I also updated outdated information about the group's offices. The sentences that describes the group's mission with a direct quote, but no citation, seems poorly written and my rewritten version reads better and has a citation.

If anyone opposes these or other edits I made to this page, please remove them, although I think we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by removing all of my edits without considering their individual value. Lewis150 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)