Talk:Armed Forces Foundation

Almost entirely unsupported
This article is almost completely unsupported by references. It's 15 or so paragraphs, and only three statements are referenced (and one only from the organization's own site).

There's been a request for references for over three years, with the notation "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I'm planning on removing all the unreferenced material in a week or so if it's still unreferenced at that time. Editors seeking to retain the material should read and comply with Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources and edit accordingly.

The deleted material will remain in the history, and there will be no objection to it being re-added if accompanied by reliable sources. TJRC (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources added. Cleaned up tone. Would like another reviewer to look it over before issues are removed. ForTheStory — Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. Some further suggestions are combining multiple 1-sentence sections and duplicated references.  I will try to get to those later. It's still pretty heavy on citing the AFF's own material, which in a few cases comes close to the issues presented in WP:SELFSOURCE. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was able to find some third party information on the organization's origins and programs to replace the citations from the AFF itself. I am still not 100% sure of the validity of the origins of the organization though. There is conflicting information whether it was founded in 2001 or 2002. Trying to go through the IRS but their finances seem to be a bit clouded the farther you go back. ForTheStory (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Trying to clear this page of any issues. I am at odds of the multiple issues added and feel this page is clear of any issues listed currently. I do not wish to go back and forth on edits so I would like more explanation so I can discuss and help to address them. ForTheStory (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , you've done an excellent job of cleaning this up. This is very fine work.


 * On the remaining issues, given that there are no independent reliable sources for the facts, they should probably just be stricken. For example, if no one other than the foundation and a particular beneficiary of the foundation reports on that project, that's a pretty good indication that this has not attracted the attention of the world at large, and does not merit being included in the article.  This isn't a commentary on how important that work is; but is in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia in reporting material that has already been reported elsewhere by "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * There will always be some items that are supported only by non-third party sources, and as long as those are run-off-the-mill data (your example of the year founded is a perfect example), that's fine; WP:SELFSOURCE discusses that.


 * The Wikipedia article will always carry a link to the web site of the organization itself, and interested readers will likely go to that site to get the specifics that the foundation wishes to convey. The Wikipedia article is not intended to be an adjunct to that, or for a means to promote the foundation; WP:PROMOTION.


 * So, if there are no third-party sources for these facts, let's just delete them, and leave coverage of that to the foundation's own web site. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Executive director embezzlement claims
I am keeping an eye on this as it develops. So far there has been little response to these from the organization itself. Please add any more information on the topic here for discussion before posting so we can best document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheStory (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)