Talk:National Rural Water Association

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Picher, Oklahoma#May 2008 Tornado|Picher Tornado]] The anchor (#May 2008 Tornado) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

State affiliates

I believe the issue at hand is that the sentence refers to the NRWA and its state affiliates. Not all state affiliates receive gov. funding and that funding comes and goes. Nrwacw (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be trying to cover too much territory. The national organization is an ngo. The states should perhaps be convered in a separate subsection.

This is like saying (identical to saying, actually), that the "United States and the states are (whatever)" and then dodging any edits based on the fact that one state or another doesn't do (whatever). The article needs to limit itself to the national and make states a subsection IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite interesting to find out what state doesn't use government money. Student7 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't know what the issue is, since the person doing the reverting, deletes any attempt to communicate on the issue for reason or reasons unknown.

Also, where is it written that an NGO has to receive ongoing funds from the government?Student7 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting the dots

A new sentence says "Rural water has made enviromental protection, especially source water protection, a priority for the industry." This is not intuitively obvious to me. Why wouldn't water protection for cities be more important? Tbis seems uncessarily promo for the assoc and doesn't seem to make sense by itself. It either needs better justification or deletion.

The sentence isn't that well crafted either. Maybe "The threat to rural water has made..." or some enhancement. It would be easier just to delete it IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock phrases

Please read WP:PEACOCK. This covers phraseology intended to promote the organization. This article is not intended to promote the organization. This is an encyclopedia. For public relations, you will probably need to start a .com page. Also, please see WP:MISSION which kind of covers the same thing, though specific to this sort of statement which pats the organization on the back. That is not the sort of objective reporting that is needed here. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]