Talk:Sam Adams Alliance

WP:Advert

Despite BuenosAiresThe43rd's POV cleanup, there's a still a lot of revision to be done to this article to make it not read like PR. And let's not have it be partisan please. No unreasonably "for" or "against," just descriptive and also examining whether the organization meets its claims about itself. Right now the entire article is tipped in the direction of "for." Our goal should be to hold the organization to the same amount of scrutiny and indifference that any article about a person or organization receives. --199.76.163.34 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The page is biased; we need someone who is interested in evaluating this group as an outsider who has no opposition. Interesting that the term "libertarian" does not appear on the page when that is the simplest single word that describes the group. Lucifugous (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement for these hoodlums. Written by them to serve their purpose of dictating policy for their big business funders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.53.3 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources tag

I removed the "this articles needs reliable sources" tag after adding information about the group from a number of different daily newspapers including the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuenosAiresthe43rd (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

POV/unbalanced tag

I removed the unbalanced tag after making several edits to the article to try to clean up the situation that caused the tag to be placed on the article; namely, the information inserted about the allegations of a tie between this group and Rick Santelli. The Playboy story that was used as the source for this section of the article has been removed from the Playboy website. So has one other article on a significant website alluding to this controversy.

While I was at it I also removed some material that seemed to be duplicative and re-wrote some sentences.

I don't really know if any of the Rick Santelli information should remain in the article. As it is, the way I left the article, a not-insignificant percentage of the article is taken up describing a controversy over something that seems to have been widely agreed had no foundation to begin with. The fact that the allegations were made, and believed by some, may be a historically important part of this organization's story but then again there are starting to be balance issues in the article, with this taking up too much room.BuenosAiresthe43rd (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would favor removing the Rick Santelli material in its entirely. It serves no useful purpose in the article and Santelli's purported role in the organization is currently unsupported by any reputable source. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to take down the connection w/ Santelli if Playboy did. However, I think the larger Tea Party connection is of historical interest. -- Joshboyette (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)