Talk:Feminist Majority Foundation

Unreferenced article reads like an ad
The current version (permanent link) reads like an ad for the organization, and preferably the language should be edited to be more in tone with an encyclopedia (copyedit). That is after the article is referenced, preferably from several independent sources and not just the organization itself. --Oden 02:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyvios
There are two lists in the article that were in a format suggesting they had been copy and pasted from another source. We should check to make sure that is not the case. 70.20.232.141 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The list looks like it came from the org's website: http://www.feminist.org/welcome/mandp.asp CortJstr 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed this note previously. It is certainly a copypaste, but as indicated by the IP, somebody from feminist.org actually did the cutting and pasting. That still doesn't eliminate copyright issues, since no representative of the site formally released the text from copyright, but simply added it. The copyright issue compounds the selfpub issue and indicates that much of this article should probably be simply removed. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More references
I added the tag that calls for more references because we only have two references for the entire article. I deleted the "advertisement" tag, because I'm not sure what part of the article is being disputed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few. Olivia.samerdyke (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest issues
I've tagged this article as having problems per WP:COI. It appears that early in the articles history it was heavily contributed to and edited by anonymous IP editor User:209.183.237.226. This IP is resolves to feminist.org, the website of the Feminist Majority Foundation. The majority of the edits are still in the article, particularly the sections "Stand on women's issues", "Accomplishments", and "Legislative success". (The latter section title is clearly POV and I'll change that shortly.) Its pretty clearly that based on this, the article will need a thorough fact-check and cleanup, looking for POV and accuracy issues. This is in addition to the fact that the article is largely non-cited. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)