This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]