Talk:Freedom's Watch

message: The article has a dozen or so wiki-links to nothing.  Is someone going to invest the time to write articles on each of these subjects or should we remove the wiki-links and just bold the names or something?  Ursasapien (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's even worse than you said. A couple of the blue links only accidently go to an existing article---about the wrong person.  Check out high school kid, Matthew Brooks, and Olympic kayaker, Richard Fox, who are likely associated with neither the Republican Jewish Coalition nor Freedom's Watch.  Looks like the author of this list just bracketed every name without even checking. And on the flip side, Florida election recount might well be an interesting link, but wasn't made.  Hult041956 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why So Many Red-Links?

message: The link in the references section no longer points to their about page.  It still says the same stuff but now it's located here:
http://www.freedomswatch.org/About/tabid/38/Default.aspx
Sorry, I couldn't work out how to change it myself. Richardbeavis 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Richard. Since the obsolete url appears in an in-line footnote, you need to fix it there. (That is, within the paragraph the footnote appears in, rather than in the Reference section.  I took care of it... go there and see how to do it.  Hult041956 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom's Watch 'About' reference 

message: Apparently Freedom's Watch is a conservative group, or so it seems. Out of curiosity, does anyone know Freedom's Watch's political positions on the issues such as abortion,crime,traditional marriage,stem cell research and etc? I think this will further enhance this article.
Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, they do not take (as an organization) positions on any issues outside of the "War on Terror."  They are very pro-Bush administration, but I do not know that you can use the blanket description "conservative."  Ursasapien (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you've got me there.  When you look here, they say "Freedom’s Watch was formed to promote the common good and general welfare of the American people by supporting mainstream conservative public policies."  They do not, as far as I can see, publically express a specific position on "abortion, crime, traditional marriage, stem cell research, . . ." but I imagine they would take typical conservative positions.  They may seek to avoid the abortion question as it is devisive even among conservatives and is completely off their original mission of supporting the war.  Ursasapien (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Positions 

message: The Jewish TA article has been out of date for months.  Blakeman resigned in March.[] Doright (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated accordingly, with this ref. And the JTA article is not "Jew Tracking". It's describing the Jewish and RJC connections of the group. —Ashley Y 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jew Tracking

message: :::I agree that there should be more about Adelson and the other donors in the Origins section. I'll see what I can do, and of course others should jump in here too. However we should achieve balance through adding reliably sourced information, not deleting it. To be neutral, we must represent all reliably-sourced viewpoints. —Ashley Y 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the efforts to compromise, but this still strikes me as out of place, and yes inappropriate.  A section on origins is certainly appropriate, but to devote so much language to their religious views, while virtually ignoring the political details is way out of balance.   Given that the organization is certainly a political animal, the origins should inform largely of the political aspects and the personal religious views of some of its members should be a quite minor portion.  I'll leave it alone for now so others can view it and comment, but I thing we still have a WP:WEIGHT issue. Dman727 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the solution is to add more political details. —Ashley Y 19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a process idea, you might consider taking a break from the Jew-ID debate and work on the political aspects of the origins section. Once you see how much length and content works for the political, you'll have a more solid basis for thinking about the proportionality for the disputed Jew-ID text. Take care, HG | Talk 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, leaving aside the dispute over Jew-ID, you've significantly improved the Origins section w/political aspects. Kudos. HG | Talk 22:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. More could be added, of course. —Ashley Y 02:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins section

message: Having looked at a number of articles on this site, which is being used as a source for way too many of the "facts" in this article, I'm not sure motherjones.com fits the definition of a reliable source... Has anyone else taken the time to review this site for anything other than citation mining?  Tomertalk 06:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really so inclined... this subject falls so far outside my realm of interest that I have pretty much 0 useful input, other than to say that there's no way we can possibly have an NPOV article on the subject when it relies so heavily on polemical (read "tabloid") press against it as source documentation.  Tomertalk 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MotherJones

message: Is this the same as John Templeton? Apparently he died today. —Ashley Y 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's his son. I'll make the link. —Ashley Y 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Templeton

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Freedom's Watch. 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/20070824092114/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902154847/http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824092114/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328681.aspx
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) 16:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified