Talk:Independence Institute

Sources & Notability

I think I've sorted the issues with sources & notability: the article now (2010-06-22) references 3 independent sources: Media Matters of America, The Colorado Independent, and the CATO Institute. This makes it reasonably notable, at least in Colorado. twilsonb (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a horribly biased page created solely to slam the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.102.59 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, this article is very kind to the Independence Institute. This is an extreme right-wing organization, and calling it "conservative" is a euphemism. All it takes to "slam" this organization is to quote a few of its official pronouncements, which is what has been done in the article. For instance, Jon Caldara (the current head of the Independence Institute) is an anti-transit activist who was elected to the Regional Transportation District board a number of years ago in a stealth campaign. As a board member, the thrust of his approach was always that public transit should not exist. Paul (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

These issues still have not been addressed, thus the POV tag. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no "issues" addressed in this discussion related to the use of a POV tag. If you wish to address them in this discussion, please do, including a description of what the problem is that you see and you feel it needs to addressed. Until then, the tag will be removed. We don't hold articles hostage to the whims of editors who can't describe a problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? The tone of the article being heavily negative? The negative pieces being poorly sourced to a partisan advocacy organization? It's hard to take your claims and tag removals seriously when you give the appearance of not reading the threads you're commenting in. The recent edits are helpful, but we should find better sources regarding the global warming and media presence information. We should absolutely include the global warming stuff (assuming a good source can be found), but I'm also not convinced the media presence information is helpful or worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to use this talk page to show that something is poorly sourced to a partisan advocacy org. Now, please show it and stop asserting it. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have in the comment you're replying to. Can you address it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please answer direct questions posed to you in a discussion about your edits on a talk page. If you can't do this, then the tags get removed. We don't point people to edit summaries or interpretations of edit summaries. There is a growing pattern of disruption here. You add tags and refuse to justify them on the talk page and waste hours, days, and even weeks of editorial time arguing about the tags. Again, you need to use this talk page, not an edit summary, to explain the problem you see with the sources. If you can't do this, the tags get removed. You will not be allowed to waste any more of my time arguing about the argument. Put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not in charge here. My concerns are listed above. Please address them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to explain your concerns here, in this discussion. And, you've refused. Therefore, the tag will be removed. It's not a matter of being in charge, it's how Wikipedia works. Please stop disrupting this site with claims you refuse to support. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have explained, and you refuse to accept it. It's probably best at this point to get other people's input. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything and you're engaging in the same disruption. You were specifically asked to demonstrate the problem on this talk page and you refused. I don't need to bring in anyone else, you need to actually use the talk page to support your use of maintenance tags, otherwise they will be removed. This is very clear and easy to understand. I don't have to telepathically read your mind or interpret your edit summaries, you need to use the talk page and explain your reasons. In other words, put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As an observer here, I can't determine from the talk page why the tag was placed on the article. It does look like the article needs to be updated and expanded, but by placing a tag on it and not explaining on the talk page the issues of concern, the ball isn't moving forward toward a better article. I'm happy to help with this article if folks want to elucidate their concerns. Absent such elucidation, I don't think a tagging and de-tagging war is helpful. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

SourceWatch external link

We find SourceWatch on several hundred pages. (I've been culling them where used as a reference.) These typically include bios of government officials. While CMD has its biases, inclusion of the link in the EL section is proper. Moreover II has its biases, so asserting non-neutrality as a reason for removal leads to unbalancing. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The SourceWatch article on II is clearly biased. It's not that informative about II, either. It's not being kept up-to-date, and is hardly about II at all--rather, it's about other groups (ALEC, Franklin Center). The long list of funders appears poorly (or not at all, in some cases) sourced. If there's good info about II on SourceWatch, why not take the reliable sources and integrate them into this article itself? WP:ELNO says we shouldn't link to "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I don't believe SourceWatch meets those criteria. The fact that it's used elsewhere on WP is not an argument for why it should be included here. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My substantial concerns about the usefulness of the SourceWatch link have not been addressed, so I am going to remove the link from the article. If anyone has compelling reasons for why this particular link is warranted here, please discuss. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been going through various articles working on their infoboxes and doing other tweaks. While I've but sourcewatch back into the EL section, I'll be revisiting it (the article) for more work. For now I'd like to leave it in for the usefulness in addressing other needed edits. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think the SourceWatch links are problematic. I'm going to initiate a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard to get some more community input. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you've done so here. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo

@Jeffrey Beall: We've had exactly this same conversation before. When the image is placed incorrectly in the page it breaks Special:Nearby and makes it look like it's empty. Can you fix this or revert back? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denver_Firefighters_Museum - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. There is already a picture of the front of the building, so a new one is not needed. The picture you added covered the entire page. Some infoboxes can only take one image. Please let's just leave this article as it is. It has the logo and a picture of the building already. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC).

@Jeffrey Beall: I'm trying to be patient here, but this really makes me angry especially since we just went over this in July of 2018. Again, the first problem here, like the problem was with Denver Firefighters Museum is that where the photo of the building appears in the article isn't positioned correctly to be the page image, and the logo is non-free. So when someone is using the Special:Nearby feature, so say, look for articles without images to add images to them, it looks like this article has no image. You'll notice if you use this URL, for example, there https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Nearby#/coord/39.7419,-104.9779 thumbnails for many articles, but not for the Independence Institute because the page image is set incorrectly.

Here are the options: (1) Move your photo so it appears in the lede section, like we did with Denver Firefighters Museum

(2) Put a different photo in the lede section.

I'm fine with either option, but if this happens again I'm reporting it to ANI. You're a great editor, and I appreciate the work youve done. But Special:Nearby is the most obvious tool to find articles sans photos, and refusing to place photos appropriately in the lede so that the feature works correctly just makes it harder on everyone, and wastes my time. - Scarpy (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jeffrey Beall: I was being too harsh here. I'm sorry for letting my emotions get the better of me. Truly appreciate all you've done for Wikipedia. - Scarpy (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)