Talk:Liberty Fund

Criticisms Section
There were a number of criticisms from Al Gore's book that were only tangentially related to Liberty Fund. I created a new "criticism" section and included only that information directly aimed at Liberty Fund. Tyrannicide (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read the book it's directly related, so I've restored it but with a bit more context (he's referring to three groups, not just the LF). Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I’ve restored it again. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Board of Directors not appropriate
If you look at Microsoft, Google, Apple, Inc. - they don't have their board of directors listed. Just name the top two and any with articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't pretend to write unbiased encyclopedias covering contemporary social issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Description of LF as a "nonprofit educational foundation"
Scott Simon says "Liberty Fund, a nonprofit educational foundation." Since this is what the RS says, what guidance prevents the article from using this term? Other sources use this terminology as well. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view, the greatest weight goes to the IRS with whom issues of this sort get categorized and logged. IRS calls them a "private operating foundation".   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The IRS info is interesting. But does the IRS have a classification for "educational" foundations? In any event, we have RS that uses the term "educational". The term educational clarifies that LF is not a church, charity, or other type of non-educational private operating foundation (Private foundation (United States)). – S. Rich (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument. Simon's a second-string radio chat guy. Find a WP:RS which has examined the issue, not just repeated the press release or website language from the Liberty Fund. Read the sources.  This is an organization with a specific purpose.  It promotes its point of view.  That's not what WP readers will get from a quick read of the word "educational" in the lede.  Find an RS which supports your view. You can do better than Simon's boilerplate intro to his radio chat about the Wizard of Oz, not a straw man, tin man, cowardly lion, etc.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

e/c
 * I would write it this way,
 * "Liberty Fund, Inc. is classified by the IRS as a “private operating foundation” (insert link I posted in prior comment) and describes itself as an “educational foundation”. (Insert full cite to www.libertyfund.org/about.html). It promulgates the libertarian views of its founder through monetary grants and a variety of direct promotional activities and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA."
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done. SPECIFICO  talk  00:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, would one of you post it please? BTW, I did not include the last sentence of opening paragraph only because I saw nothing to tweak. My intent was to leave it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IRS data: EIN is 35-1320021 ; Indiana secretary of state registration:

Control Number: 194278-162 Status: Active Entity Type: Non-Profit Domestic Corporation Entity Creation Date: 8/19/1960 url:
 * For posting when PP ends. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Full protection
It was either this or 2 blocks. Sort it out here please. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need any protection. I had done more research, found some sources, and posted them. User:SPECIFICO doesn't like some of the stuff I added, and he reverted. I did not edit war with any of these edits. SPECIFICO said he wanted the "origins" material developed in the text (as opposed to the infobox alone), so I restored and added Under construction with the hopes that I might continue to develop the article. When I saw that material was being removed (as opposed to tagging) I gave up. Why did I say "hack away"? Well, the material that had been tagged cn by SPECIFICO a few hours earlier had just been removed, as was my editor comment "" in the infobox. But do we need protection? I hope not, much less consideration of any blocks.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I felt I had to protect or report you all to WP:3RRN, and that wasn't something I wanted to do. If the two of you come to an agreement quickly I'll unprotect - if you do, let me know on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Describing "ama-gi" in the infobox
Regarding this revert, my thoughts are as follows: For an infobox, it is certainly appropriate to provide a logo for the organization in question. Since this logo also happens to be a word, it makes sense to provide a link to the article we have on this word. It might also be appropriate to provide a translation. The reason this organization chose this word for its logo is that it was (according to them) the first usage of the word "freedom". They didn't chose this word because it means "return to the mother". While the later is certainly one correct (if overly literal) translation of the word, in my opinion providing this translation in the infobox, and only this translation, confuses the reader more than it clarifies. There's certainly an interesting discussion to be had over the proper way to interpret the word, but the infobox is hardly the appropriate place for it. Neither is its etymological origin a fitting tidbit here. Gabbe (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no big deal. Doug Weller (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty Fund. 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/20160612071422/http://www.libertyfund.org/logo.html to http://www.libertyfund.org/logo.html

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) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Gore material
I’ve restored the Gore material. The arguments for removing it were absurd. These claims are fully supported in the literature. Furthermore, we currently have a situation on The Founding Myth where an editor is claiming that the Liberty Fund is not a right wing group. That is the height of absurdity. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)