This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I moved the unattributed text below (no contributor signature) to this discussion page (Deirdre 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)):
---
The text should be edited to state:
The Evergreen Freedom Foundation is a free market public policy research organization which purports to "advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government" funded by the Scaife foundations and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
The Foundation received public attention after Bob Williams made a series of media interviews in the wake of hurricane Katrina in which he asserted that the blame for the poor handling of the disaster was largely the fault of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Nayor Ray Nagin for failing to properly plan for and implement the long-standing Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. He also called on Congress and the president to take corrective action with respect to the delays in FEMA's response.
The support for the above corrections is in the following source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007219. The writer of the original text opts to describe the organization as being "conservative", while the phrase "advance individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable government" is a self-descriptive phrase used by the organization. Furthermore, the author of the original text states that "...Bob Williams made a series of media interviews in the wake of hurricane Katrina in which he asserted that the blame for the poor handling of the disaster was exclusively the fault of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Nayor Ray Nagin and excusing the Bush administration of all blame." However, Mr. Williams' stance is reflected in the same source as follows: "I am not attempting to excuse some of the delays in FEMA's response. Congress and the president need to take corrective action there, also."
---
Undid the follwoing POV edit (Mens ex Machina (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)):
In 2005, the EFF exposed their far right leanings by perpetuating the myth of voter fraud. They submitted what they believe is evidence of fraud and civil rights violations to Attorney General Gonzales
---
Until the word "stated" was added, the article read like an advert/propaganda for EFF. Without changing text, this situation has been corrected. No perjoratives, just a subtle addition. I'll be monitoring this article to see to it that this edit stays in place. Tapered (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this page, it appears that "Evergreen Freedom Foundation" is the organization's former name, and the organization is currently known as the "Freedom Foundation." I don't know too much about changing page names, but should we change the name of this page to "Freedom Foundation?" Also, I see that the term "Freedom Foundation" currently redirects here: Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a steady amount of COI editing on this article. The tag stays on unless there is consensus that the article has been chcked for neutrality. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There are 5 sources used in the article that are written by Freedom Foundation employees, which could not be immediately obvious when reviewing it:
--MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
MarquardtikaTo preclude an edit war,let'sdiscuss whether or not Labor advocacy groups can be used as a RS. You claim not, referencing WP:IMPARTIAL I claim yes they can referencing WP:BIASED Quote: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". " The labor advocacy groups meet those requirements. In addition, if they were slandering or their statements were not true, then they would have been sued. As regards the AP article, true it doesn't mention the FF, but it does mention the ADF as a hate group,and the two Labor sources mention at least three ADF attorneys hired by the FF. If need be I will continue researching until I fulfill YOUR, not WP, requirements.Oldperson (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)