Talk:Americans for Limited Government

Untitled

hi! because i'm studying land use initiatives and related legal battles, i'm interested in 'americans for limited government' and the inititaive its supports. while i agree that to organization is very conserative, i don't think it's fair to call it 'a far right' organization in the first line of the entry. better to objectively describe the debates that have arisen around ALG's activities than to begin with such a loaded phrase.Benzocane 17:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

TABOR

This is obviously highly controversial policy and midwestmax is right to note that. But you can't just say contested policy has been a disaster (I recognizie midwestmax is new to this community: see NPOV tutorial). I have removed the more inflammatory rhetoric from the description and added the pro-TABOR view. Let's make this a strong, balanced entry!Benzocane 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I am new to wikipedia and you are right that I did not do a good job following the NPOV guidelines. My apologies and I will be more careful when editing articles like this in the future. I do think it's important to mention how controversial TABOR is so thank you for showing me how to do that in a neutral way. Midwestmax 20:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm studying these issues closely for a seminar I'm teaching and finding the NPOV is always tough. But I think this article is on its way... Thanks for doing your part.Benzocane 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the whole third paragraph should be removed. It reads like campaign literature, is unnecessary, and violates NPOV. --Maineusa 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Supporters of ALG would admit it's been a source of ongoing controversy. The description of that controversy seems seems objective to me. Benzocane 16:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion, Stop OverSpending Nebraska

Stop OverSpending is also being considered in Nebraska for 2006, yet this article mentions nothing of it. In this case, ALG is the co-sponsor for SOS Nebraska. Things that this article should include are its affiliation with National Voter Outreach, and criticism. For example, how Nebraska's own Secretary of State was approached by an underage 15 year old circulator, how ALG was able to get away with violating private commercial property owners' Fourteenth Amendment rights by petitioning in front of big-box stores, how ALG threatened to sue radio stations for merely airing anti-SOS ads, ALG and NVO received criticism because of the shady people that it hired to circulate this, like this nice 41 year old petition circulator from Florida that got arrested in Lincoln for punching a 20 year old university student, etc. Oh, and let's not forget ALG's point of view. Tuxide 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert Decision

I reverted the recent changes by Rlorenc. Rlorenc cut about half the article's content, including what seems like important material, without offering any justification or starting any discussion with the editors whose hard work has built the entry. Object to specifics and offer solutions, don't just cut other editor's contributions unilaterally. Legosoldier 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if anything controversial needs to be posted, it should, perhaps, be placed in a Controversy section rather than in the section that describes what ALG does or what its intent is. Your feelings? Rlorenc 14:53, 27 October 2006 (CST)

I added a Controversy section as suggested, and grouped some of the general controversies there. Since there are no specific challenges to the neutrality of the article on the Talk page, I'm going to remove the flag on the main page as well. -Pete 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your guidance in following good Wikipedia form. You were right to take issue with my edits from last year, and I appreciate the work. -Rlorenc 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Claim that ALG was "forced out" of Illinois

The article says that ALG was "forced out of Illinois", but the link given for that doesn't substantiate the claim. The link says they were "apparently" forced out of IL by the Center for Public Integrity, which is a partisan political organization, and gives no documentation or links to substantiate the claim that some government agency forced them to leave. I know first-hand that this assertion is inaccurate and based on politics; it should be removed. What are everyone's thoughts? In the interests of full disclosure, I used to work for ALG, but no longer do. I currently work for the Sam Adams Alliance. My group shares much of the same staff as ALG did, but shares no decision-making with ALG as it now exists in VA. They are two fully independent organizations. Thanks for your input. -Rlorenc 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rlorenc, please take a closer look at the article, you're mistaken. The title is "Organization That Bankrolled ‘Takings’ Initiatives Forced Out of Illinois by Attorney General." The article says that the C.P.I. learned of the event, not that they did the "forcing." The article essentially says that the group chose to leave rather than comply with the state's laws, including financial disclosure. (Do you question the accuracy of that? If so, do you have an alternate source?) To my mind, that's compatible with the phrase "forced" to leave, but I'd be open to rephrasing. -Pete 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag to the article because of this assertion in it, along with what strikes me as excessive loading of weasel words like "controversial".

The question about the CPI report is whether CPI is a reliable source in this regard. They make the claim, but they don't provide evidence for it. At any rate, I wouldn't rely on CPI as a reliable source in this regard without noting that they report they created-- the takings initiative project -- in which they make this claim was produced (according to them) with money that they received from the Wallace Global Fund. The same year the Wallace Global Fund funded CPI to produce the Takings report, the Wallace Global Fund gave direct donations to at two groups (Futurewise and Idaho Smart Growth) that funded political campaigns in two states (Washington and Idaho) opposing ballot initiatives sponsored by Americans for Limited Government.

The CPI article indeed does say that CPI "learned" of the event. Nevertheless, they provide no evidence substantiating that there was such an event. They just make the claim. The idea of the editor above that Rlorenc should have to substantiate that the "forcing" didn't occur in order to justify taking that out of this article has the burden of proof in the wrong place. The claim shouldn't go in the article unless there is positive evidence to support the fact that it happened. CPI can claim all it wants that they "learned" of this event, but they are arguably partisan political opponents and they provide no proof. Including the assertion fails to satisfy Wikipedia's standards.Jkought (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I am open to rephrasing. I understand your concern about CPI not being the best source. I found an article from a better source, that seems to take a less biased tone: Oppenheimer, Laura (November 4 2006). "Illinois looks at allegations against developer's groups". The Oregonian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Maybe that's a good starting point for rewriting in a way that reflects a more NPOV. (I'm sure that if it was covered in Oregon, there was probably some Illinois coverage too, but I haven't been able to find it yet.) -Pete (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything in the Oregonian article you link to above that substantiates the claim (also unsubstantiated) made by CPI. The article in the Oregonian mentions late filings, ALG says the late filings were of minor import. If you can't find any articles in the Illinois press about this, that is suggestive that, as ALG said, it was a matter of minor import, easily corrected. The fact that ALG seems, in fact, to continue to exist, albeit with a passle of hardnosed political operatives who dislike it, one would assume that if those oppositional political operatives had been able to make more out of this, they would have. If you want to do original research on whether or not ALG had to pay a fine, or on what the size of the fine was (which would be evidence as the whether or not the matter was of minor import or not) certainly you could do that, publish it elsewhere, if anyone cares, and then link to it on the Wikipedia page. (I can't find my password, so I created a similar username). Jkought2 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I found a source in the Oregonian but not the Illinoisian results from two things: (1) The O. was a national leader doing investigation on this particular story, and (2) I live in Oregon, know all kinds of ways to search Oregon media, but don't know a thing about finding older Illinois media articles. Anyway, I'm open to rewriting it using the Oregonian instead of the CLI as the main source. I'm working on too many articles right now, so have at it if you like; if you don't propose anything in a week or so, maybe I'll take a crack at it. -Pete (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does this revision stand? I think the problem with the article is not that it references the compliance issues that ALG ran into, but the it connects their "leaving" Illinois to those issues. It is my understanding that they resolved the compliance issues and eventually ceased operations in Illinois for reasons that were entirely unrelated. A better wording would be to say that "ALG missed a filing deadline (date?) and was subsequently investigated by the Illinois Attorney General. No penalties were levied against the organization." The use of the word "forced" is editorial in both the source article and in the Wikipedia entry. -Mike —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

People are free to re-write the assertion that ALG left Illinois because of an issue related to the AG's office if they find an unbiased source upon which to base that claim. In the meantime, I removed it. I haven't seen any reliable evidence that the AG's office in Illinois investigated them, much less that it "forced" them to leave. There are also issues here of balance, not to mention updating issues. It's mid-2008 and the article is still stuck in 2006.Jkought2 (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

The information in the article about the board of directors is three years old. Any reason to think that is still accurate? Jkought2 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to add the tag; information should definitely be updated; will try to do when I get the chance. I've been working on an article about a related topic so I may have more information in a bit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC) But reviewing the names of the directors, I think they're pretty much accurate today. I think Rich is a director, along with Wilson, and I remember coming across the name Tillman from an article search. Current count of members = 18 I think, according to a newspaper source, with a budget of about $4 million.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the section is that these are notable people who have served on the board, not that it is the current board. If a current list is found it should be added to the existing list, but the old list should not be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing

I am new to the Wikipedia world. I've read but have never tried my hand at editing. I figure jump in with both feet and learn to swim. I am interested in politics and economics of all theories. When I came across this article, it in no way reflects the quality of similar non-profits. I aim to address this by restructuring content, updating information, and in the processes gain a more neutral POV. I am sure there will be mistakes made, I welcome change, but also would like an explanation as to why my edits were changed if that is not to much to ask. I understand that this will be a long process and welcome any advice and help along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiChallenge (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Two small issues: on talk pages like this we add new comments at the end and we auto-sign them using four tildes ~~~~.

My advise to you is to start with reliable sources about the group, and then simply summarize what they say about it. We should trim some of the material which isn't about the group, like the long section on Taxpayer Bill of Rights. That topic has an article of its own, and most of the material about it here doesn't seem to relate directly to ALG. Likewise, the section on education does not need to review the issues with vouchers, just give the ALG's stance on the issue. If you need any help let me know. This article is also part of three collaborative projects (see the top of the page), and you can ask for help for any of those too.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One other point of guidance: While the ALG's own website may be used as a source, its use should be limited. Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on independent sources, presented with the neutral point of view. We provide a link to the group's website, so readers interested in just getting their view of themselves can go there.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Helllloooooo Wiki! Thanks for your efforts. I'm glad to see someone cleaning up this article. Let me know if you need any help. I can be reached on my talk page or at my home away from home: WT:WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You may want to reorganize the sections. Check this out: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/Style guide#Article structure. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I eliminted the entire second article under TaBOR, it didn't relate to Americans for Limited government. Also the section under property right I edited a bit. let me know what you think.WikiChallenge ^(talk) 00:43, 09 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americans for Limited Government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233408/http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C90011883 to http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C90011883

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)