Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies

NPOV
I added a criticism section, because the article currently reads like an advertisement for the group, without the least-bit of criticism for what is in reality a highly controversial organization. The article didn't even include the mention that the group is considered neoconservative, with all the controversy aurrounding that ideology. Nevertheless, the article currently still has NPOV issues due to undue weight issues and such. Ngchen 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While i agree all articles should have a bit of criticism, it should be sourced. They certinly claim to be bi-partisan several times on their website, and have promoted the creation of bi-partisan commities in the us government. I'd think a strong citation is needed to call FDD neoconservative (although i see were you could get that idea) especially with the negative conertations with that word.Hypnosadist 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The funders have been mentioned, so one knows which side they are on. 'Whose bread I eat - whose song I sing' is the saying for that and always true when you look close enough. When you know who pays you know the side, probably no explicit criticism or appraisal needed. About most NGOs, who are not accountable to anyone, you do not know who funds them, so this is a welcome exception here. 2001:8003:A921:6300:1994:DC34:BF3A:F668 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * According to the International Relations Center, "[FDD] has become a prominent member of the web of neoconservative-aligned think tanks, a group that includes the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, and Freedom House." (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475) See the FDD's board members and board of advisors; whether Democrat or Republican (mostly R), it largely reads like a "Who's who" in American Neoconservatism. Therefore, IMHO, referring to FDD as "Neoconservative" is self-evident from the information provided by the organization itself, and in no way is a moral judgement. MrLou 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I haven't learned to Wikify citations yet, so perhaps someone could apply http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475 to the first "citation needed" for the Neoconservative label. MrLou 05:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think IRC's analysis of the FDD as solid proof. IRC is also an organization with a very clear agenda. it is most definitely not a self-definition of the FDD.
 * Forget IRC, have you actually read the articles on FDD's website? The ideology espoused within the vast majority of these articles largely meets the definition of Neoconservative, especially in terms of foreign relations. The term is not a slam; It's an accurate definition. MrLou 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not call it just a conservative group? The label neoconservative has become very loaded, the actual meaning of the word no longer is widely understood and is often used pejoratively The conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan however has always been about the kind of foreign policy that the FDD advocates and hence it simply is that, too. Wikimam 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I fear that the label "neoconservative" here is being used in an inaccurate (at best) and denigrating (at worst) manner. To the best of my knowledge, FDD seeks to promote democracy through internal reforms and social movements, not at the barrell of a gun like in the Iraq war. Neoconservative and pro-democracy movements like FDD obviously have the same ends, but starkly different means. This is a nuance conveniently omitted by those who seek to label pro-democracy think tanks like FDD "neoconservative".

In addition, one cannot pigenhole each and every writer and thinker at FDD. There are presumably disagreements as to how each issue should be solved, if the issue should be solved at all. -- User: Fretboard1776 13:01 , 12 June 2007

The International Relations Center piece on FDD is completely unacceptable. It is a hit piece, fair and simple. The IRC website's subtitle is "exposing the architecture of power that's changing our world." Come on. This cannot be viewed as objective, just as everything on the FDD website must be examined as well. For instance, where does anybody get the idea that FDD is "pro-war"? Aren't they just "pro-democracy"? Don't they spend money and time on advocacy and training? Not lobbying like other high-profile institutions? -- User: Fretboard1776 13:01 , 12 June 2007


 * I agree, I don't believe one can call a thinktank neoconservative when one of its members is Donna Brazile, the former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000. The piece from the IRC definitely raises the Wikipedia Red Flag Wikimam 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely New Page
Based on the fact that the information on this page was quite outdated, as well as in dispute, I thought it would make sense to completely update it. So based on the comments above, I have replaced the information that used to be here with newer information from the FDD web site and Annual Report. I have also removed the NPOV dispute tag. If anyone disagrees, please don't revent to the old information and start an edit war. Simply update any of the information that is currently there with whatever edits you may have. Larryfooter 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to readd a criticism section, and have placed the NPOV tag back. The reason is that the edit makes the organization look like an angel (probably because organizations tend to write positively about themselves), without delving into controversies. The FDD's opponents include both paleoconservatives (with the reference to the American Conservative Magazine report, as well as antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo), as well as anti-war liberals and anti-war people in general. Without including such opposing views, the article cannot be neutral. But even with a drastically expanded criticism section, the article still would not read like an encyclopedia article without major reorganization to neutrally present the organization in question. Ngchen 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the neocon and pro-war references. How can a group with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board be neocon? And just because one web site labels them as pro-war does not make it so. This implies that these people are in favor of as much war as possible which is simply not true. Regarding the NPOV tag, you can't just slap up an NPOV tag forever and wait for someone to re-write the article - that tag has been up there for over a year - and it's time for it to come down. If you don't like what the article says, then *edit* it! That's what is great about wikipedia. But trying to keep an NPOV tag up for more than a year without making the edits to remove the non-NPOV items is not proper wiki-ediquitte. Larryfooter 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am forced to revert the deletion. I don't know about the two people you mentioned and their politics. Regardless, trying to draw inferences from the membership fails WP:OR. And FWIW, the Christian Science Monitor has a reputation for being a reliable source. Globalsecurity.org is considereded reasonably reliable too by military buffs and the like. If you do a search at antiwar.com, or the liberal commondreams.org, you'll find plenty of criticism. One can hardly accuse the American Conservative magazine of being unreliable. It is unacceptable to try to whitewash controversies. Honestly, the old version of the article was much more neutral in its last iteration. Sourced criticism from reliable sources should not be removed wily-nily. And the passage of time does not make a non-neutral article neutral. Perhaps someone can come and fix it? Ngchen 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * again, this NPOV dispute tag has been up for over a year - the article was completely re-written since the NPOV tag was added a year ago - so it's not the passage of time, it's the complete re-writing of it that makes it no longer an NPOV dispute - which is why the tag was removed - and again, if you don't think it is from a NPOV, then *edit* the article rather than putting the NPOV tag back on ... and maybe you need to do more research? if you do not know who Chuck Schumer is, then you probably do not know much about american politics ... FYI: Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile are both liberal Democrats - they are not supporters of Bush - Schumer is a Democrat senator from NY (just this week he said "Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.") ... so he is not a neo-con ... and Donna Brazille worked on the Jesse Jackson and Al Gore campaigns - she is not neo-con. Both are not only members, they are on the board of advisors. Why would 2 liberal democrats be on the Board of Advisors of a neo-con group? Maybe you should do more of your own original research before you make your next edits. Maybe you should call the organization or find someone who has interacted with them before and get some actual real research before you edit this article next time. Once you do this research, maybe you will understand my question of "how can you call an organization with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board neocon?" ... once you do that research you will understand that your comment is not an NPOV comment. and antiwar.org is a not a neutral source. By their name, they are anti-war ... so their opinion is not from a NPOV. So citing them does not make this more neutral. And no one is trying to whitewash anything. But it is not fair to keep slapping an NPOV dispute tag on an article but not be willing to edit it to make it NPOV. so again, if you think the article can be improved, then improve it ... but stop vandalizing it with endless NPOV disputes. that is not fair to wiki-readers. So I have removed the NPOV dispute tag again. please do not add it again. if you think something is not NOPV, then *EDIT* it for God's sake. your laziness should not disturb wiki-readers - and what you are doing is not fair :/ Larryfooter 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * one more tidbit for you from the wikipedia page on Chuck Schumer: "A Democrat, in 2005, he became chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In November 2006, he was elected to the new post of Vice Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. In this position, he is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin." Why would the third most powerful Democrat be on the Board of a neo-con group? Do you think his Democrat friends would allow him to be associated with neocons (who are all Republicans) and continue to elect him to top Democrat leadership positions? Your argument just makes no sense. Just like the NPOV dispute tag makes no sense. Larryfooter 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * and as mentioned above in the NPOV dispute section of this page, your actions raise the Wikipedia Red Flag - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - and you do not have exceptional sources - I suggest you read the Wikipedia Red Flag page to learn more about this before you make your next edits. Larryfooter 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ngchen - you should also learn more about the guidelines you cite - The first sentence of WP:OR reads: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that these two individuals are on the Board of FDD is a published fact. The fact that they are both liberal democrats is published fact. Therefore, if they are both liberal democrats and on the board of FDD, then FDD can not be labelled as neocon in any intellectually honest debate. If it were neocon, then liberal democrats (the exact opposite of neocons) would not be affiliated with the organization. So citing those two members does not fail WP:OR. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * one other point: antiwar.org is not "Sourced criticism from reliable sources" ... it is an oganization with an agenda and has been proven to be unreliable dozens of times. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * one final point: your comment "perhaps someone can come and fix it" is disingenuous at best. you started the NPOV dispute over one year ago. and as being one of the only people in all of the world to object to this article, *you* have done *nothing* to edit it other than add biased unsourced criticisms. why don't *you* fix it if you do not think it is neutral? you seem to be the only one, so why don't *you* do something about it other than taking the easy way out and just adding the NPOV tag over and over and over again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfooter (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have filed a request for comment (RfC). Now, I would like to offer a rebuttal. I believe the rewrite, while done in good faith, is nevertheless not neutral. Someone can rewrite something multiple times in good faith, and still not produce a neutral article. Now about Charles Schumer and Donna Brazile, I am familiar with the fact that they are Democrats, Schumer's anti-gun politics, etc. etc. But saying that because they are relatively liberal democrats (verifiable), and that they are on the board (verifiable), and that the organization therefore cannot be neoconservative (not verifiable) fails the subset of WP:OR, more specifically WP:SYN. Nobody is claiming that Democrats cannot be hawkish and so forth (see Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman for examples). A common criticism of neoconservatism is that it allegedly is not really conservative at all, and that it derives from the far-left. As for "calling them" and such, that really is OR. Remember, the goal is verifiablity, not truth. The sourced criticism I added specifically notes that people making the criticism. As you correctly noted, antiwar.com is against war. Are you saying that statements like "the liberal group X has argued that position Y is wrong because of blah blah" should be excluded? If so, why? Notice that the phrase liberal group specifically notes that it is a liberal group. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether they want to consider criticism from liberal groups. Nevertheless, if the group is well-known, then such a statement should stay. For fixing POV disputes, well I'm not necessarily the best writer for presenting stuff neutrally. I know that for the 32 Demands article that I worked on, what happened was that there was a very biased version first, I added some criticism, and a third author later kindly fixed it. It is now neutral to everyone's satisfaction. I am hoping the same will happen here. Removing sourced criticism (from the Christian Science Monitor no less) is unacceptable.Ngchen 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ngchen: see my comment below about your criticism section - it fails WP:RS - read more below under your copyvio / sourcing discussion section Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Larryfooter, the FDD website is not a reliable source for this page. see WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * dlabtot: the web site was not a source for this page - the web site was referenced above to make a point that the organization is not neo-con - it's bipartisan - the web site was mentioned on this discussion page only to show that it listed many prominent democrats on its board - which would be impossible for a neo-con organization to do - also, WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" but then lists some exceptions - if you feel any of those exceptions have occured, please post the specifics of your concerns. thanks! Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out a number of fallacies in the above remarks. First of all, the fact that Schumer and Brazile are associated with the FDD does not in any way make the organization "not neocon." Both Schumer and Brazile are also associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, which is essentially the forum for the "neocon Democrats." Brazile worked for Al Gore, who was consistently as militaristic as any of his Republican counterparts. Therefore, the Brazile/Schumer argument is not only OR, it is false. The argument by Larryfooter that the organization is bipartisan, and therefore not neocon, holds no water whatsoever. Moreover, the characterizations of FDD as "neocon" were all properly sourced and must be restored, and I will do that now. Larryfooter's claims against antiwar.com should be documented before material from that source is deleted. The fact that it "has an agenda" may be noted if properly sourced. However, it is not a "liberal" site -- one of the noted commentators there is Paul Craig Roberts, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.--Marvin Diode 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * anyone who thinks Schumer and Brazile are neoncon doesn't deserve the right to edit any political article on wikipedia because they obviously know nothing about american politics. There is sooooo much evidence to the contrary that it's not even debateable. And regarding anti-war.com - they have no editorial oversight - they have no reputation for fact-checking - and the claims made by them are exceptional (and rememeber, WP:RS says: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people") - so the criticism is poorly cited, does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, and therefore does not deserve to stay on this page. Larryfooter 16:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Neutrality/Criticism
A dispute exists over the neutrality of this article. This user believes the article is biased in favor of this organization by not including criticism. Another user disagrees, and argues that the criticism is unreliable. Further questons exist over the requirement or lack thereof of a duty of one raising a POV dispute to fix it oneself with the passage of time, as opposed to having third-party editors do it.


 * I took a look at the article's edit history, and it does appear that the article has been "cleansed" of legitimately sourced criticism. The language in the article is also somewhat biased, using formulations that echo the organization's own propaganda. --Marvin Diode 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second the request for criticism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.148.103 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

copyvio/sourcing?
I just wikified a bunch of links, and tried to make the article more neutral. Something that struck me was how the article seems to be almost lifted out of the organization's website, at least for the parts I checked. If true, there may be a copyright violation. In addition, the tone really is/was that of a promotional handout, rather than that expected of a neutral encyclopedia article. Interestingly, there have been no sources cited by authors other than myself for all the article sections. If the writing was based mainly on the organization's website and such, then I'd like to remind editors that the use of primary sources, while OK in itself, requires special care to do well and do in a neutral, fair manner. Ngchen 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * some content was adapted from the organization's annual report with permission from the organization - no copyright violation has occurred. and regarding your "sources" cited in the criticism, i will refer you to WP:RS ... excerpts of which follow:


 * In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views.


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.


 * Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.


 * Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.


 * Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.


 * antiwar.com, rightweb, and Globalsecurity.org (despite the fact that I like John Pike) are not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" nor do they have any "editorial oversight." Therefore, it would be impossible to claim that they are "the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views."


 * none of the criticism is sourced from "multiple high quality reliable sources"


 * the criticism represents "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories" (ie. shutting down terrorist TV is censorship)


 * the criticism presents exceptional claims (ie. militarism / war mongering / hypocracy) but does not cite one exceptional source (such as a scholarly journal)


 * some of the sources (antiwar.com and rightweb) are considered to be politically extremist (even the names antiwar.com and rightweb respectively imply an extreme of never going to war and absolute leftism).


 * moreover, nice try moving criticism to top of the page before the body of the article. that's just absurd. so the standard now is "i'm going to tell you why everything you are about to read is wrong before you even get a chance to read it" ... this criticism is obviously an attempt to smear a respectable organization with poorly sourced conspiracy theories. as a result, i have removed any criticism that is poorly sourced and moved the criticism section to the bottom of the page where it belongs. Larryfooter 04:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * also, this is misleading: "The campaign to shut down al-Manar broadcasts have raised concerns about censorship from the American Civil Liberties Union. "


 * a few points here: if you read the ACLU press release, it does not even mention FDD. It cites concerns about government legal prosecutions - not the FDD campaign. Moreover, such criticisms are baseless since censorship did not occur. Advertisers quickly withdrew support and satellite providers stopped broadcasting once FDD's campaign made them aware of the English translations of the terrorist-supporting content provided by Al Manar. Such criticism is consistent with the ACLU's repeated efforts to provide moral support to terrorist organizations in the name of free speech. And therefore is not even criticism about FDD but instead criticism of the government. please find a different page for this. Larryfooter 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So where does that leave the Christian Science Monitor? What about the paleocon American Conservative? What if I got stuff from the liberal The Nation? Antiwar.com is a well-known well, anti-war group that welcomes anti-war opinions from across the political spectrum (from liberal to libertarian to conservative). Labeling all criticism "extremist" and such with your edit is making it difficult to assume good faith. Phrases like "nice try" make it seem as if you're waging a war. If you don't understand how censorship concerns can be raised (rightly or wrongly) about the closing and banning of extremist messages (a la al-Manar), might I suggest reflecting on the notion that it's precisely unpopular and repugnant speech that free speech is supposed to protect? If FDD supported banning or shutting down al-Manar, and the government does so, it's reasonable to argue that FDD supported censoring al-Manar, rightly or wrongly. Hence the "concerns" raised by the ACLU. I will agree that the material from Rightweb is somewhat more questionable, as they aren't well known per the earlier discussion. As Marvin_Diode has noted, it appears that you've tried to "clean" sourced criticism which is not acceptable, and violates NPOV. How'd you like it if the ACLU page didn't list its critics? Ngchen 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ngchen i agree with your points as to the notability of the ACLU's criticism and FDD worked hard to get al-manar banned anywhere they could. Having said that Antiwar.com is not a RS, but Christian Science Monitor is in my opinion. Antiwar is a website with no notable editorial controls and of a very specific one issue bias so does not meet the standard but you could ask at the policy talk page. ( Hypnosadist )  21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Antiwar.com features notable experts who have served their country as high ranking administration officials and as officers in the CIA or other intelligence agencies. The specific one issue bias does not disqualify the site, although it can be mentioned so that the reader is aware of its orientation. --Marvin Diode 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not the quality of contributors thats the problem, its the editorial quality that i think makes it not an RS. I'm asking at to get clarity for this article (and others) that use the two sources.  ( Hypnosadist )  22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A Quick Lesson on Reliable Sources
I feel compelled to remind some of the editors of this article of the following WP:RS guidelines (and I quote from the WP:RS guidelines):


 * In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views.


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.


 * Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.


 * Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.


 * Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

a few points here:

1) any claims of militarism, being "pro-war" (which implies that these people actually want soldiers and civilians to be killed), partisanship (since the organization claims to be non-partisan), promotion of censorship, being in the pocket of israel, being "war boosters," engaging in spin, being a front for the israeli lobby, or being in favor of "permanent war" (which is ludicrous - even hitler did not call for permanent war) are 'exceptional claims.'

2) WP:RS clearly states that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people."

3) the criticism has not been "cleansed" - it has been cleaned up to adhere to WP:RS - antiwar.com is not a "high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." none of these claims can be supported by multiple reliable sources

4) "Sources with with ... no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves" ... please adhere to this guideline ... think about what editorial oversight any of these sources have - "NONE" will be your answer.

5) the repeated efforts to modify this article in clear violation of WP:RS are what wikipedia calls vandalism and will be reported if it continues.

come on guys! if you have some real criticism about this organization - source it properly and come with something better than the vast right wing jewish conspiracy - this is all unsubstantiated propaganda and has no place on wikipedia. this is the kind of stuff that gives wikipedia a bad name. so please stop. and please note that i will not stop removing these poorly sourced references every time they reappear.

and regarding criticism in general: criticism belongs on the bottom of articles - not at the top - look at any other article on wikipedia - so stop moving it back to the top Larryfooter 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern about reliable sources. Perhaps you missed the WP:NPOV policy though? Claiming (non-neutrally) that all paleoconservatism is "extremist," and that "liberal" groups are extremist and by implication wrong clearly violates NPOV. NPOV is absolutely non-negotiable, per Jimbo Wales. People at the reliable sources noticeboard have noted that antiwar.com isn't considered reliable. However, neutrality requires that well-soruced material (positive or negative) not be removed. The fact that FDD is a neoconservative (notice I am purposefully avoiding the loaded terms neocon, neoconartist, neoconnazi, etc.) group is clearly part of any reasonable description of the group. You had perviously asked why the WP:SELFPUB guidelines throw the groups's own page as a source into question. The answer is that it is overly self-promoting. I don't blame them for that. As I have noted, primary sources are tricky to use in a fair manner, as the source has a motive for making itself look good. This is true regardless of where it falls on the politcal spectrum. I will now make modifications taking into account the concerns raised about rightweb, antiwar.com, and such. Oh, and BTW, the ACLU is a well-known group on the liberal end. Their opinion certainly ought to be included because civil liberties are in their area of expertise, and they've issued their opinion. Political magazines, when clearly identified as such with their general orientation, are reliable in representing "their" ideology. They do have editors, writers, and so on so their material is vetted for accuracy. In general, the accuracy of a publication can be judged by its reputation. Recently, WorldNetDaily and FrontPageMag were deemed unreliable, not because of their politcal slant (right), but because they have had a history of publishing false and misleading information and rumors. The same cannot be said of publications like National Review, Salon.com, Asia Times Online, The American Conservative, The Nation, and so forth. Being engaged in "spin" might not be the most neutral way of putting it, but generally it is understood that partisans with any agenda will tend to spin. FWIW, WP:RS is not a license to remove any and all negative information simply because the information is negative. If the source is credible, then having a source for negative information is sufficient, unless the material is strongly negative and improbable, at which point an additional source is needed.Ngchen 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Long story short, I'm not sure you know what neoconservatism is. The wikipedia article appears to be a battleground at the moment, but there are several good articles out there outlining its origins. Not saying that this particular group isn't neoconservative, merely that I have yet to see a reliable source that says so. Please produce such a source so we can proceed. You give a nice description of WP:RS, but then don't produce a citation that justifies the fact in question.


 * On another note, there are plenty of groups that are ideological without being partisan. So I wouldn't be surprised if User:Ngchen found such a source. In the meantime, with founders like Donna Brazile and Charles Schumer (clearly liberal), and Newt Gingrich and Steve Forbes (clearly movement conservatives), the question is at least up for debate. Richard Perle is one good example of a neocon, of course, but my point is that the founders seem to come from across the spectrum.


 * Lacking a source, the fact that you think it's self-evidently true isn't going to cut the mustard.


 * Wellspring (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The neoconservatism of the group is perhaps best documented at . As I have argued all along, the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source. Secondarily, articles from the Asia Times, and so forth have also documented the group's neoconservative nature, rightly or wrongly. I have yet to hear anyone speaking on the group's behalf denying that they're neoconservative. If that happened, of course the denial is worth including.Ngchen (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. CSM is a reliable source. The tag should stand then. Thanks!


 * Wellspring (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alas Ngchen, WP:RS is a license to remove anything that is not from a reliable source - and wikipedia defines what a reliable source is - and unfortunately, your sources are not reliable per wikipedia's standards on fact checking and editorial oversight - and again, i will remind you that these guidelines say "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources" - which you have failed to produce - as such, I am again removing your vandalism of this article Larryfooter 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC closure
I am going to close the RFC unless someone objects. Eiler7 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I object, but it looks like the horse is already out of the barn. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
Where are the images for FDD that used to be here? There was a picture of Walid and the FDD logo. Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

founding members/leaders
why is michael ledeen notable enough to be named to this section? There are whole host of who ought to be mentioned too. Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My sense is that if they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they are notable enough for that section. I think I may have written that section originally, and that was the criterion that I used. Perhaps there are others now that should be added. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fair enough, but use consistency. Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at their list of advisors, it seems to have grown considerably. For now I have listed the upper echelons, using their ranking system. I'll add more later. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI editing
Please note that is regisered to Foundation for Defense of Democracies and has repeatedly edited this article. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

.. in a perhaps related vein, the article as it stands reads, unfortunately, like unfiltered Hasbara (a subtle term translating roughly as "excuse"). Looking for interested neutral 3rd party to address this. Thanks. Shockoegrind (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed
Obviously not neutral! And the "Investigative reporting" section, to name just one, has remained with sweeping allegations without any citations for over two years now. --Stfg (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
The praise section of this page is consistently deleted and the criticism section is consistently increased. For this page to be considered neutral both sections should be allowed to exist so the reader can make their own opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty20036 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to include a section on praise. However, the one you keep trying to add is just a string of very long quotations, all but one of which are of unknown provenance.  Do you think you could rework it into something similar in format to the criticism section—that is, with shorter quotations which concisely capture the intent of the commentator, and which are supported by specific references to the reliable source in which the quotation appeared? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I could provide sources for those quotations would that be acceptable? Also, where does wikipedia stipulate that a quote has to be within a certain length or format? Liberty20036 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you need to provide reliable sources for those quotations, but that alone isn't sufficient for them to be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles (or even sections of encyclopedia articles) aren't mere collections of quotations.  Consider trimming them down so that only the most relevant material is quoted, eliminating quotations which say the same thing as another quotation (or alternatively, summarizing in your own words a set of quotations which say much the same thing, and then providing references to the originals), and adding some explanations and/or links which show why the quotation or the speaker/writer is notable.  If you are looking for a place just for collecting and reproducing verbatim quotations, please consider creating a page at Wikipedia's sister project, Wikiquote. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, how can the criticism be flagged as vandalism and from questionable sources? Liberty20036 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC) You're joking right? There is one specific passage right below this! And the compliant as I specified repetitively is that all the criticism say the same thing over and over again. And I've tried repeatedly to improve the intro but it keeps getting flagged as copyright violation even though its cited and clearly says that its from their website. Its sitting on the temp page waiting to merged in by an editor. I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be a criticism section at all, only that if there's going to be one, let some other content be on the page! And because I want this somehow I'm affiliated with the organization and there's COI? This clearly is a soap box for criticism. To clarify, I've already conceded your point that opinion doesn't make it an unreliable source.Liberty20036 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Also, if this line isn't in violation of WP:NPOV WP:NOTSOAPBOX] then what is: "Haim Saban – media mogul and Democratic Party donor; a surprise considering FDD’s Republican bent and Clifford May’s former role as an RNC spokesperson"
 * Wikipedia isn't about the reader forming his or her own opinion. Wikipedia is also not about your pushing of your own opinion.  Please read WP:NPOV, WP:SPA, WP:V, and WP:RS.  Why are you so interested in editing this article?  There are thousands of other articles to work on. Qworty (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is an unfair illustration of the organization its suppose to be about. Why are you so interested in contribution solely to criticism of it? Isn't just finding and posting negative opinions expressed about the organization and not positive ones pushing your own opinion? Their website has plenty of bi-partisan support for its work. Just see: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd/what-theyre-saying/ Why demonize and consistently vandalize its image because you disagree with it on one particular issue?Liberty20036 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I would ask you the same. Why are you so interested in editing this article? You clearly have a bias and know little about the organization you trying to criticize.Liberty20036 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in this article because I saw a discussion about it on the WP:COI noticeboard, indicating that more eyes were required here. I would agree with that. Qworty (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The criticisms don't stand-up to WP:REDFLAG and WP:NOTRELIABLE and therefore should also be worthy of deletion? Also can you give the praise section time to cite rather than just deleting? Just label "needs citation" What you're doing is edging on If not then the page should be deleted because this is just going to continue in circles. Constant WP:EDITWAR has prevented this page from being properly cleaned-up. Liberty20036 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It takes time and effort to clean up an article that's half a copyvio and half an advertisement for the subject. You and I aren't the only editors looking at the article--there are a lot of experienced eyes on it now, and consensus is building toward the right direction.  Give it time. Qworty (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The criticism section and the reliability of the sources it uses has been the subject of extensive discussion elsewhere on this page. I suggest that you read through these discussions, as you will already find answers to your questions there. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read it and what I see is that they are unreliable sources. Someone with a clear agenda expressing their opinions about the organization is NOT a reliable source. It's not factually based. Liberty20036 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take them one by one. For each source you believe not to meet our policies on reliability, could you please list it here and explain your reasoning?  If we can develop consensus that the source is unreliable, and no one comes forth with a different source for the claim which is reliable, then we can remove the corresponding claim from the article.  (Also please note that your definition of "unreliable" doesn't appear to match the one used by Wikipedia.  Under the latter it is entirely possible for an expression of opinion by someone with a clear bias or agenda to be reliably sourced.) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fair but aren't many of the sections in Criticism all arguing the same thing. How many ways do you need to say pro-war, neocon, and pro-israel? You get from the "Neoconservative" section. No need to repeat it over and over. I think WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NPOV all apply here.Liberty20036 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But there's no point in consolidating claims which shouldn't be in the article to begin with. How about we work on which sources are reliable first?  Removing any claims not supported by reliable sources may also fix the redundancy you're concerned about. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'm afriad what's considered reliable in these cases is a matter of opinion. "Right Web" and ThinkProgress are clearly left wing organizations, so they have their opinion of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies because in some instances, not all, they take opposite positions on issues. But for instance labeling the organization as "pro-war" or "pro-Israel" is repetitive throughout the section and isn't based on any factual evidence except those sources' opinion. Where does wikipedia draw the line on just using a page to express opinions and fair criticism. I can see a controversy section making more sense with WP:NPOV than a sole criticism section which at its current condition is just a soap box.Liberty20036 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, reliability can often be a matter of opinion. In such cases what we need to do is solicit opinions here to form a consensus on whether the source can be used to support the claim it's making.  So please do as I suggest and list here the claims you believe are not supported by reliable sources.  Then all the editors participating here can examine them on a case-by-case basis, swap opinions and arguments, and come to a conclusion.  Note that, as I mentioned earlier, a source's reliability doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its bias or point of view.  The statement of an avowedly left- or right-wing organization can still be used as a reliable primary source for the views of said organization.  If it weren't, we wouldn't be allowed to quote anything FDD says about itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia's guidelines allow opinion sources then they allow opinion sources. They've been argued in the past above and there doesn't seem to be a concensus, so I would argue that they should just be scaled down. But isn't this page currently just a soapbox for criticism? From the criticism in the first section you get the point that its seen as "pro-war," "pro-Israel" and neocon (Which are by common usage seen as all the same). Can't they be scaled down? Do I have to wait for an editor or can I just do it? How long will this page continue to just be a WP:EDITWAR?Liberty20036 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The page will continue to be subject to an edit war as long as anyone continues to edit it in the absence of or in violation of consensus. The best thing to do before making any potentially contentious edit to the page is to establish that a consensus for the edit exists.  And the easiest way of doing that is to propose the edit here on the talk page and ask if anyone supports or opposes the proposal.  If there are no objections to the proposal, then you can usually assume that a consensus exists, and make the edit.  If (and only if) this process doesn't work, we have various dispute resolution procedures which can be used.  —Psychonaut (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at history of this page, including the sections above its clear that efforts have been made before to have a consensus and are still unresolved. Its clear if you read some of the edits and just look at the current state of the page there are clear efforts to vandalize this page and soap box it for criticism of the organization its supposedly about. I'm trying to make an effort to improve this page and give it a NPOV as much as possible but its becoming an impossible task with the vandalism. This page might as well be deleted or made blank if its going to sit as it currently is. Liberty20036 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the article in its current form seems slanted against the subject. However, I don't see any evidence supporting your claim that you're trying to improve the page.  I've explained to you several times that you need to list your objections to specific passages or citations so that we can develop a consensus on whether they are indeed problematic and, if so, how to edit or remove them.  So far you have offered only very general criticisms of the article and complaints about the historical lack of consensus; you propose no specific solutions, nor have you initiated any attempt at building a consensus with the many editors who are now watching this page for the first time in response to the recent conflict of interest, edit warring, and help desk reports (some of which you yourself posted).  I therefore suspect that many of these editors are now calling into question the sincerity of your desire to cooperate, and this justifiable presumption of bad faith on your part will almost certainly lead to any further edits of yours being reverted. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the criticisms you were making upthread—sorry I didn't make that clear. The one you mention below is much better; it would have been nice if you'd also proposed a rewording, though that won't be necessary for the time being as that section is also a copyvio and has been tagged as such.  Anyway, people don't suspect you of being affiliated with the organization merely because you're criticizing the article's point of view and editing the article to change or remove this point of view; rather, it's because you're making the same or substantially similar edits to it as those recently made by IP addresses known to be registered to the FDD.  —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Yeah, I'm dropping by opposition of the opinion criticism as long as it fits within the rules. Well, I noticed that the organization wasn't getting a fair depiction so I tried helping it out, but clearly I'm not the best to do so since I'm not a wikipedia veteran. I am getting a bit annoyed about this having consensus. Currently I seem to be the only one voicing need for change on this page and trying to contribute to it. But any addition I add to the page gets deleted. Where are the voices of opposition speaking up?Liberty20036 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the last time, propose the specific changes you want to make here on the talk page and solicit other editors' opinions. Then you'll see whether there is support or opposition, and if there are editors in opposition, you can work at changing their minds.  As long as you don't do this, there will be an edit war. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I already have been on the Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. I have a life, so I haven't finished put everything I think should be included. If no one is saying anything oppose to it, wouldn't that then form a consensus?Liberty20036 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I, for one, oppose it.  It's WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Describing the work the organization does is promotion? But allowing just criticism is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX? You're just vandalizing the page. AND stop undoing that this page is flagged for neutrality, as it says its being discussed here until there is a consensus. You don't own the page.Liberty20036 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Every single word you've ever typed on Wikipedia is promotional of this organization. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I be in favor of keeping the criticism section if I was just trying to promote the organization? What actual information about the organization would you like on the page other then criticism?Liberty20036 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling conservatives "conservative" isn't criticism. It's just a well-sourced statement of fact.  End of story.  I'll never understand why conservatives are so afraid of being called "conservative."  Just be proud and let go of it.  Sheesh. Qworty (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that. Why does it matter if conservatives are afraid of being called "conservative?" That has almost nothing to do with the article in question since its a non-partisan group that receives praise from Democrats and Republicans. And no one is arguing anymore that "Neoconservative" should not be included in the criticism section(which is what's in the criticism section, not "conservative." which is by the way, not entirely the same thing. Conservative is a more board political ideology while neoconservative is more a label for foreign policy hawks). We don't need to hear your opinion of conservatives.Liberty20036 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the sentence certainly contains editorializing that seems out of place here.  But the point is moot as the whole section is a copyvio and has been blanked. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation
The copyright issue has been resolved, stop undoing the clean-up.Liberty20036 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue is resolved only when an administrator or copyright clerk says it is. Until then, do not edit the infringing section and do not remove the copyright violation template.  If you want to volunteer to write a non-infringing version of the article, then please follow the instructions on the template. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing a rewritten version of the article at Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. A copyright clerk or administrator will review it and, provided there are no further copyright problems with it, merge it back into the main article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How long does that usually take?Liberty20036 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It varies, depending on the availability and workload of the administrators and copyright clerks. If you'd like you can browse the past cases at Copyright problems and see how long recent ones have taken to be processed. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting absurd. This page says nothing about the subject its about and any attempt to edit it is undone and the editors banned. Its just for criticism. Wikipedia is joke. Alas, the uninformed and stone throwers rule the day. Liberty20036 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you keep this up, you're headed for a permanent block.  Have a nice day. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been civil except you keep engaging in WP:Vandalism. If you read WP:Primary, you can use Primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." And citing a Congressman who is not part of the subject is a reliable source. You should be permanently blocked for consistent WP:Vandalism of this page. Liberty20036 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a routine content dispute. Dealing with editors you disagree with by calling them names--"vandals," "stone throwers," "uninformed," etc.--is a violation of WP:CIVIL.  I will repeat it again, and will say so on your talk page:  You are in violation of WP:CIVIL.  I have no doubt that you are headed for another block. Qworty (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The WP:SPA with the WP:OWN issue keeps trying to insert a neutrality tag, against consensus. His entire beef with this article appears to be that it labels the FDD as a conservative organization. Since when is it an insult to call conservatives "conservative"? The sourcing is certainly there for this group to be labeled conservative. Since the editor in question is the sole voice arguing the odd POV that calling a conservative a "conservative" is some sort of insult, I think it's time that he reconsider and stop his crusade against this article--which is, btw, the only article he's ever been interested in. That is very strange in itself. Qworty (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm arguing at all. If you read the Neutrality section above you'll see its clearly not the case. Qworty is vandalizing the page and is undoing any changes I make which clearly seems to be just because I don't share his negative view of organization. If anyone looks at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp page and has something to contribute other than undoing everything thing I add, please do so. I simply believe that this page in its current status is useless and is simply a soapbox for criticism. Which you'll see there is a criticism section which does call the organization "neoconservative," not that that's an accurate description since its had liberals on its advisory board, fund it, and praise it. but Qworty can't dispute that so he'll just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty20036 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My view toward your organization is purely WP:RATSASS. If you have well-sourced information on it, by all means add it.  Please read WP:V and WP:RS first though.  Thanks. Qworty (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the word "Criticism"
From what I've been able to understand of the position of the WP:SPA, the reason he's been jumping up and down for all of these days and using up all of this bandwidth is because he doesn't like the "Criticism" section of the article. So I've simply gone ahead and removed the single word, "Criticism." Now the organization's right-wing views are presented solely as what they are--well-sourced right-wing views, without any indication that this is a "criticism." I hope this settles the matter. I really don't see why so much energy must be expended on an article because of the existence of a single word. Sheesh. Qworty (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly not the case if you read any of the discussion above. What you did wasn't a consensus and thus has been undone. You wail about consensus but then make whatever judges you'd like. Its clear by your comments that you're using this page to WP:SOAPBOX your opinion of "conservatives," "right-wing views," and the organization this page is about. Move along friend.Liberty20036 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Criticism* section seems odd as it focuses on criticizing the critics.--76.11.108.62 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC?
Does anyone else feel a new RFC (Request For Comment) should be filed regarding this article and the issues surrounding it? Ngchen (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't. There haven't yet been any serious attempts to build consensus for specific changes here.  So far certain people are only making contentious edits directly to the article without asking here first, or else edit-warring over maintenance tags.  If these people aren't going to discuss proposed changes here, what makes you think they'll do it at an RFC?  And I don't think an RFC will attract many more uninvolved editors than are already watching the page, since it's been the subject of at least four recent project-space reports:
 * Copyright problems/2013 January 23
 * Help desk/Archives/2013 January 23
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 61
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 38
 * I am actually mildly sympathetic to the concerns editors have expressed about the article's lack of neutrality, but not having any particular expertise in the subject matter, I am patiently waiting for them to suggest what specific text should be added or removed from the article to address these concerns. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been building possible options for the page on Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp which no one seems to be looking at. It requires more research but is a start. I've already discussed this temp page several times, that's my serious attempt of building consensus. I think the COI can be removed since the suspected IP address's changes have been undone. And the Copyright problems and NPOV are part of the effort I'm making on Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp. Anyone is welcome to comment.Liberty20036 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That page is supposed to be a draft for solving the copyright problems with the current article—that is, one in which the infringing content is removed or rewritten in your own words. It's not intended for you write a completely new version of the article with substantially different content.  Whichever administrator or copyright clerk processes the copyvio will likely disregard it, or at least those sections of it which don't replace the infringing content.  Changes to non-infringing parts of the article should be made to the article itself, not the "copyvio" draft. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * His intention is not to deal with the copyvio issue, or indeed to follow any WP policy, but to create an entirely new version, one which serves as an advertising puff-piece for the organization, a pure piece of WP:PROMO--while yelling about "neutrality" day after day. Qworty (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Describing the subject in a non-critical way is promotion? Then what's the point of wikipedia other than a soapbox for criticism? As I've said before and will continue to say and do, I'm completely for a criticism section, that would add to giving the page a neutral/balanced description of the subject. But I clearly must be part of the organization and a right-winger for suggesting that!Liberty20036 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of external links
Just a note to explain my reasoning, I removed the external pdf links because they were not resources about the subject of the article, and given the promotional tone here and potential for CoIs, I am wary of the use of ELs as linkspam. External links to the organization's website, like the one that appears in the sidebar, should be sufficient. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree absolutely with your edit, per WP:SPAM, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and certainly, in this particular case, WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement?
Since when do advertisements have criticisms of their product? That should be removed. Liberty20036 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An article doesn't have to read wholly like an advertisement to be tagged as such. It's enough that most of it reads like an advertisement.  Which is still true in this case. Qworty (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already established yourself as a critic of the organization so anything that isn't negative you have a problem with. Do I have to put in another dispute resolution? Liberty20036 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. What you need to do is read and observe WP:CIVIL, as you've been warned many, many times before. Qworty (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm going to. Weren't you just banned and all your changes for this subject removed recently? Liberty20036 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never been banned. Once again, read WP:CIVIL and stop attacking other editors.  You should focus on articles--other than this one--rather than on personalities.  Otherwise you won't have a long editing career around here. Qworty (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you should be blocked because you've repeatedly vandalizing this page and your edits have been deleted from past history. You're arguing with sources like the Los Angeles Times, NPR, Associated Press, C-SPAN, Congressional statements, and more. You're refuting facts with blatant bias opinion, which you clearly share. Editors agreed with me in the last battle, I can't see how its possible they would disagree with this. To defend myself from your attacks: I would edit the pages of other policy institutes if I saw them come under the same level of vandalism and inaccuracy as this page has. I'm not here to attack you, I'm here to contribute some accuracy to a subject that has been consistently smeared. If I point out that you do not have a NPOV, don't take it so personally. Try contributing to the page with reliable sources about the subject not just one view point. Liberty20036 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA.
 * Then, if you're convinced that:
 * your consistently hostile attitude has nothing to do with the lack of progress you appear to be making
 * you have no personal bias or POV to push
 * you have adequately attempted to work with other editors
 * Then I suggest you post on the appropriate noticeboards, or file an RfC. That is much preferable to constant low-level edit wars and endless complaints about bias. If your arguments are not being taken seriously, then bring better arguments. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 16:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought my arguments were pretty solid, just being ignored. But I like your edit and can agree with it. I have also just posted on the appropriate notice boards to build more of a discussion. Liberty20036 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I endorse this edit, which provides reliable sources for both characterizations of the organization's political stance, and doesn't make any claim about which one (if either) is correct. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, your arguments are not as solid as you would like to think. Rather than waste people's time with pointless edit wars, you might want to, as noted above, bring better arguments.

Which noticeboards? You know it's considered polite (and it may be mandatory) to post here about which ones you've posted at. While I'm at it, I would urge you to read WP:CAN. Please note that i was not suggesting you post on noticeboards immediately, but only after you examined your own contributory behavior. You appear not to have done this, which is upsetting. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] #_ 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I arrived here from the new filing at WP:DRN. This latest edit, putting forward both characterizations, seems good. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait why am I being attacked? I didn't start this latest round of edit wars. Editors had settled a previous dispute that "nonpartisan" was the best word choice for the intro and "neoconservative" was better suited in criticism section. But recently someone changed that, which even though its been discussed repeated in this page's history. The latest change was never discussed here on the talk page, including the alleged "reads like an advertisement" flag. So I reverted to what it previous was and started the discussion we have here. No one ever spoke up and give a "better argument," let alone an argument, to why neoconservative should be there. I even included 5 reliable sources to support the change back to nonpartisan. But someone reverted and never defend their change again. I identified one user who has consistently opposed/reverted my edits and arguments and from my view point has only vandalized the page and not contributed anything to its improvement because what I perceived is a bias. Previous statements about conservatives he/she has made on this talk page and his/her clear approval of negative comments about the subject, but not positive ones, demonstrates no NPOV. This has been a repeated problem since I first attempted to make edits to the page, which I'll admit my first edits needed work. But instead of improving my edits, they were attacked and deleted. I wasn't aware trying to improve wikipedia in any way was a "waste" of people's time, since no one is being paid to make these edits. You're free to do whatever with your time either here or else where. I just want to find ways to make it more accurate and a NPOV. Liberty20036 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the excellent rewrite the introduction has received, balancing "nonpartisan" and "neoconservative," with multiple sources. Other editors also agree, so I would say we have WP:CONSENSUS.  Thus, this debate is now WP:HORSEMEAT and I think you should WP:JUSTDROPIT and WP:WALK.  There's no need to keep arguing and arguing after consensus has decided an issue--unless your purpose here is just to argue for the sake of arguing, which is counterproductive, pointless, and indeed WP:Disruptive editing.  Please reconsider your attitude and behavior, as others have warned you.  Thank you.  Qworty (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105015114/http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies to http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Political leanings nonpartisan or neoconservative
i would think this would be an oxymoron "Political leanings are nonpartisan or neoconservative". Even if it was "Liberal non partisan". The whole system is partisan now.
 * It has been described as nonpartisan and neoconservative - not necessarily by the same people. But even then, those two descriptors aren't contradictions; neoconservatism describes an ideological outlook, while nonpartisan means it doesn't support a political party.  A nonpartisan neoconservative organization might eg. support Democrats who they believe will back intervention to promote democracy, which is a key part of the ideology.  Also, I restored the descriptor of neoconservative, which seems well-sourced and reasonably uncontroversial (even the organization's name summarizes its neoconservative beliefs!) It seems like it was removed based on an objection from a not-very-reliable source, but we have to give the Telegraph and the CS Monitor more weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)