Talk:Foundation for Government Accountability

Adding Content
I am new to editing anything on Wikipedia and I would just like some guidance on what is and isn't accepted content to fill out the entry about our organization. For instance, I am curious why the key people section I added was removed, only because I'm not familiar with the norms or standards. I would appreciate any advice or help in understanding what things are ok to add and what probably shouldn't be added.

Thank you!

Charles a siler (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have a conflict of interest that you haven't declared? Benboy00 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article appears very much a PR piece. It seems bereft of any of the negative press attention it has garnered. Ifnord (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Reading this and checking the reporting on what this think tank actually does, I am very positive there is a neutrality issue here.
 * The Criticisms section was simply removed without discussing it here and while there is clear evidence that the think tank is conservative, that designation was removed as well. CrazyPredictor (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added back the Criticisms section, as well as the "conservative" designation for the think tank as well as the "POV" tag which is clearly warranted.
 * The article still looks like a PR piece. The links this think tanks has with the most conservative (possibly far-right) Republicans or the fact that it promotes what was called "junk science" was not mentioned or reflected at all (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/18/theyre-the-think-tank-pushing-for-welfare-work-requirements-republicans-say-theyre-experts-economists-call-it-junk-science/).
 * Furthermore, this source (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Government_Accountability), while a wiki and thus not directly quotable, has cited reputable sources confirming that this article is definitely not neutral and is in need of a broader rework. CrazyPredictor (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Article still contains nothing about their advocacy of election denial conspiracy theories. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Source to prove that the FGA is a conservative think-tank?
Based on the contents of this article, the FGA only advocates for fiscally conservative economic policies but this has no mention about any socially conservative policies. Would this make them more of a libertarian-conservative think-tank? TrickshotsBSYT (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)