Talk:American Tradition Partnership

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am in the process of expanding this article. More content will be added within the hour. Please do not delete! Thanks!Tiogaroad (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I have updated the article due to the group's new name. I have left all references to the group's name as Western Tradition Partnership when the actions described happened before the name change.Tiogaroad (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a mess

This article is a nearly hopeless mess. It has too many subheads, words are misspelled, discussions begin without any introduction or overview about the subject at hand. The "court cases" section begins with no overview and, instead, jumps right into an unspecified case with what appears to be an excerpt from someone's blog without identifying the relevance of the source nor the importance of the case. It's difficult to edit portions of this article because it's so unclear what exactly is being discussed at times.96.245.116.174 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did an overall copyedit of the piece, stripping away some of the redundancies, orphaned material, ambiguous elements, etc. For neutrality balance, I also pruned the external links, given all but one linked to the same entity that is critical of the article's subject. Many of the external links were about issues that were not included in the article, e.g. a discussion about ATP and Exxon. If public controversy about ATP exists, it should be discussed in the text of the article itself, if properly sourced. Given that the US Supreme Court may take up the ATP case, more attention to this Wikipedia article could be forthcoming. 96.245.116.174 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Edit Warring

I have noticed in the history that there are edits occurring from several IP addresses (108.12.82.122 and 67.251.7.146 to name a pair) in the "Stolen Documents"/"Meth-House Documents" section that add in claims that are not substantiated by the citation. I believe special care should be taken to evaluate edits in this section, as the edits appear partisan. Barbaryan7 00:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]