Talk:Freedom Foundation (Washington)

Untitled
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

---

Purpose/Stated Purpose
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)

Name change?
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)

Conflict of interest editing
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)
 * Can you please provide some detailed examples of users that have edited this with a COI? According to this WP page on the matter, "[a]ny editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." Unless you can provide this, I believe it best to remove the tag until sufficient evidence is raised. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed this article for any potential neutrality/conflict of interest issues, and I do not see any current evidence to support maintaining the COI tag at this point going forward. If any other editors note any evidence of current or ongoing COI issues in this article, please edit the relevant content or participate in this talk page discussion so that any issues can be addressed. It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It&#39;sAllinthePhrasing: I suspect the original concern was because the extensive editing by, who was blocked for sockpuppeting and possibly COI. Lemongirl942: it's been a while since, but could you shed some light here? --MarioGom (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Beware sources related to the subject
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)
 * This was fixed by (diff). Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Labor advocacy groups
To 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)
 * I don't believe that advocacy groups of any kind meet WP:RS. Looking at the websites for the NW labor groups you cited, I don't see evidence that their websites have the necessary "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." The AP is of course a great source, except it doesn't mention the Freedom Foundation, making its content WP:SYNTH. Academic publishers and newspapers (like the LA Times source you found) would be good places to look--much better than any type of advocacy group. Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to be very careful in labelling people - where we have articles on them there's no need. Labelling someone has historian, artist, author etc is uncontroversial. Other labels may be controversial, maybe added at times in a way that violates NPOV and may need sourcing. Being an advocacy group definitely does not prevent them from being reliable sources, User:Marquardtika. We use the SPLC a lot - but the key thing is attribution. "The SPLC has labelled x as a hate group" is perfectly acceptable. This has been discussed to death at WP:RSN and I can't see it changing. Doug Weller  talk 08:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no issue using SPLC, but that's not what's being discussed here. The sources that were added to the article were the websites of the Northwest Accountability Project and the NW WA Central Labor Council. I'm contending that those aren't reliable sources because they are merely the websites of advocacy groups (and not particularly notable ones at that). There was also an Associated Press article added that had SPLC info in it, but it had nothing to do with the Freedom Foundation, which is the subject of this article, so I don't see how that is useful here. Marquardtika (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)