Talk:International Futures Forum

permission is granted for re-use under GFDL: *http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Nuclear_spin_and_GFDL --Davidmillerglasgow (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License


 * The source of this article is the heavily biased anti-nuclear website, http://www.nuclearspin.org/ . The article does not represent a neutral point of view of the subject. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite April 2015
This article was nominated for deletion and with good reason. By April 2008 problems with the tone, lack of references and uncertainty of the notability of the organisation had all been flagged up. By that point the content in the article described an organisation that had so far taken money to help a firm who were sacking hundreds of workers and another firm that dealt with nuclear waste facing an image problem. The original article was written with quite a bit of critical analysis, much relating to material produced by the IFF itself. In January 2009 an IP editor changed a lot of the terminology, but this editing appeared to have a focus around removing references to lobbying. The IP editor said they had a close connection, but despite this COI there hadn't been any significant attempt to go through the changes. The January 2009 edits also included an unfortunately large insertion of a list of material available on the IFF’s website that wasn’t descriptive. So, I'm not surprised that editors haven't made any significant inroads to cleaning up this article so far. I have just done some major editing which effectively rewrites most of the article and links a lot more to other Wikipedia articles and adds a raft of secondary sources. There is still work to be done, including some lists of names of people and other organisations that are perhaps somewhat out of date and also may be surplus to requirements. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)