Talk:Americans for Limited Government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)