Talk:FreedomWorks

message: A review of this article leads one to think it was written as an ad piece, and is without alot of citation, and contains alot of POV statements.  I am disputing the neutrality of this article, and would like to begin discussion here. 
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework, rewrite

message: Agreed this is unbearably one-sided!!!  Only passing acknowledgement of the "astroturfing" and corporate contributions aspect that I believe is essentially proven.  See, e.g., http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks or http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1497377
... or for entertainment Chris Matthews slam of the org at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFNXeDtFNYY
-- Andrew/ doug123w  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug123w (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source watch is a liberal based wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch), Common Cause: "It is described as liberal by such news organizations as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, TIME, and USA Today." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Cause) While Chris Matthews, calls himself liberal. I would hardly think pointing at 3 clearly biased sources as "essentially proven".  So how about we edit with a NPOV, and WP:IRSObsidi (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed!!

message: The insurance thing is not about freedomworks. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) is the organization accused of signing people up through MSAs. Unless anyone has any objection in a week I will move that section from FreedomWork's page to CSE's page
: According to the article cited:
: So I think a better solution would be to simply merge the two articles, explaining the name change. -Pete 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurance issue

message: merging FreedomWorks and Citizens for a Sound Economy would make sense 74.8.97.18 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of CSE and FreedomWorks articles?

message: Why was the article Empower America deleted and moved to here?  Why would someone delete the history of an organization even if they did morph or merge into this new organization? Should we merge the 13 Colonies with the United States of America or Dodge Motor Company with Chrysler?  It is the equivalent of eradicating history to delete an article and redirect it to another. Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the article [[Empower America]] deleted? 

message: Could the people sticking in 'enrage' into the introduction please comply with the Wikipedia requirement to provide citations for things like that. Please see WP:Five pillars about contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No OR please 

message: A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share tactics with British and European tax lobby groups 
Some excerpts: "Libertarian US Tea Party organisations attended a conference in London today to share tactics with British and European taxpayer lobby groups, and described their activities as 'an insurgent campaign' against their government's tax and spending policies."  "Terry Kibbe, a consultant at Freedom Works, which claims to convene 800,000 activists, told the Guardian she wants to help mobilise otherwise cerebral political institutions in the UK and Europe by helping them create grassroots activist wings."  "Freedom Works trains Tea Party activists in running mass demonstrations and provides access to bespoke-designed software to allow activists to set up powerful computer networks that would otherwise be too expensive. It has also published an activist manual and will shortly issue a 'Rules for Patriots' booklet."  "Americans for Prosperity ... headed by oil billionaire David Koch, was also represented at the London conference, and helped fund it."  ""We have been working to identify groups in Europe that would be amenable to becoming more activist-based, think tanks that could start activist wings," said Kibbe. 'We have worked with the Taxpayers' Alliance, in Austria and in Italy, and we want to do more.' "  "Other leading US rightwing thinktanks that financed the conference include the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Conservative MPs Peter Lilley and Robert Halfon spoke at the event, which was also attended by representatives from Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a Climate change skeptical thinktank led by Lord Lawson, and BP.  "'We need to reach out to a broader audience," said Barbara Kohn, secretary-general of the Hayek Institute in Vienna, which is one of Europe's leading low tax campaigners and has also been advised by Freedom Works. 'We need to come from various angles. We have all seen what our friends in the Tea Party movement, and their march, have achieved.'"  Useful to this article?  99.54.143.8 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/tea-party-britain-us-tax  A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share] 

message: I recently added this information to the article:
"FreedomWorks has been criticized by the Center for Public Integrity for how much it pays some of its employees. Former chairman Dick Armey was paid $500,000 per year (Washington Post source) and flew first class, along with other FreedomWorks employees, for work travel. President and CEO Matt Kibbe is paid $320,000 per year. Kibbe's wife, Terry, is a fundraiser for FreedomWorks.(Huffington Post/Center for Public Integrity source)"
This information has repeatedly been removed by an editor who has said:
1) "Undue weight for unremarkable leftist complaint against a conservative group."
2) "That HuffPo would complain is boilerplate. Find something that says that this is actually something people are talking about."
3) "Misrepresentation of Washpo Source. There is no criticism there. Quit pushing the POV"
I would note that I inserted the Washington Post source directly after "Armey was paid $500,000 per year," which the Washington Post source verifies. The data in both of these articles is taken directly from the group's 990, so I'm not sure how that can have a point of view. It is a point of view to put this in the criticism section (although the Huffington Post/Center for Public Integrity source is critical, that is their point of view). This information does seem relevant given Armey's pay-out. We could include this information elsewhere in the article if it would be more amenable. Perhaps a section called "executive pay?" Please discuss. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the addition is unmitigated gossip, the amount of the pay is reliable, but commentary that it is excessive has to be from not-clearly-biased reliable sources, per WP:BLP.  Criticism by notable (and not reliable) sources might be included if the names were excised.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Executive salaries

message: Shouldn't an article be about the resignation of FreedomWorks' chair Dick Armey? This was a significant turning point in FreedomWorks' timeline.Gabefair (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Armey's Resignation 

message: Aside from the rdue suggestion that it was a "pointed disruption," why was this edit of mine was reverted?Gobbleygook (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question at hand is why was it added?  You have the burden to justify your pointy edits, not me.  The source isn't reliable nor needed.  Why did you add it? Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediate is a reliable source, not least because it has editorial oversight and the paragraph was added because the incident reflects something for which FreedomWorks received significant criticism.Gobbleygook (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reliable source nor is it about this topic in any way.  Please familiarize yourself with what kind of sources we use and how we use them.  Further, there was no reason for you to add this source other than for disruptive purposes. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reliable source...how? And it is about the topic as it's talking about FreedomWorks directly. Gobbleygook (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you didn't even spell the source correctly in your most recent revert.  It's spelled Mediaite and it's a blog posting.  Second of all, the source is not about this subject, it's about a "Fake Sex Video Featuring Hillary Clinton And A Panda" and I suspect that's the only reason you added it.  Third of all, the content is already covered by the corresponding Guardian source which is about the conservative media.  I'm going to remove this nonsense once again.  It is very clear to me that the only reason you are adding this blog posting is because it contains the words "Sex Video...Hillary Clinton".  I think this is disruptive editing at its worst, and I believe you should be prevented from editing Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From Mediaite's about us page: "Mediaite is the site for news, information and smart opinions about print, online, broadcast, and entertainment media..." So obviously, it's just a blog posting. Really what are you talking about. Also, the Mediaite article is talking about what Freedomworks did (so it is about "this subject") and it is controversial because the incident reflects something for which FreedomWorks received significant criticism. Gobbleygook (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we can't use those kinds of sources on Wikipedia.  Please consult our guideline on WP:RS for further information, or find more reliable secondary sources for the information you want to add.  A good sign of reliability is coverage by mainstream sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: There is absolutely no reason to include a link to anything which remotely resembles that video. It is incredibly unencyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only has the controversy been reported in putatively "fringe" websites like Mediaite," it's also been reported in more "mainstream" websites like the Telegraph and Politico. So can you tell me how is it "unencyclopedic" to include that widely reported incident by legitimate third-party sources in a section on this article that bears directly on the controversy? Gobbleygook (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing edits 

message: This article appears to violate Wiki's rules as it blatantly endorses a book by a "member" of this group. It clearly endorses certain politicians over others. Most concerning for me, it references legislation that it "supports" that I contributed to. In this particular case, the legislation is distinctly bi-partisan aimed at helping to resolve a major issue impacting the lives of citizens and the finances of the United States. Bi-Partisanship is clearly documented when looking at the bill's text and legislators associated with it. National references from major news sources and publication are also bi-partisan. 
Ironically, this articles appears to lack proper citation for many references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhtak2014 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your talk page comments. Thank you for your support of sentencing reform. I don't think our article promotes the book, can you be more specific? The "split" was a significant event in the history of the subject of this article and one theory advanced involves the book at least in part. I don't think the article promotes politicians, can you be more specific? Hugh (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Please help provide better references. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity Violations 

message: Kibbe has apparently moved on. Who is the current President?
:According to the staff page , Adam Brandon is now President & CEO. Also, while looking at the staff page, I just noticed that Stephen Moore is now "Senior Economic Contributor." Interesting. I think he used to be at at the Heritage Foundation, so I think this Freedomworks gig is new. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kibbe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FreedomWorks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090315051222/http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/chairman-dick-armey-speaks-about-the-fall-of-the-r to http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/chairman-dick-armey-speaks-about-the-fall-of-the-r
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524021601/http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/wisconsin-cse-is-now-freedomworks to http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/wisconsin-cse-is-now-freedomworks
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120108101714/http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org:80/endorsements to http://www.freedomworksforamerica.org/endorsements
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081114130836/http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1497377 to http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1497377
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FreedomWorks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120402115248/http://business-journal.com/kasich-to-rally-state-issue-supporters-p20296-1.htm to http://business-journal.com/kasich-to-rally-state-issue-supporters-p20296-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on FreedomWorks. 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/20150318011132/http://www.spn.org:80/directory/organizations.asp to http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section only cites its own material (WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:MISSION apply), except for one source.  —PaleoNeonate – 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've trimmed it back to the one source. I expect we can find independent sources that will give us something to expand the section from. --Hipal (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: has removed information apparently verified verified by the Politico ref, providing a National Review article as rationale, but without using that article as a reference in the modified version.
Per RSP, Politico is a better reference source in general.
Doesn't https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/dick-armey-freedomworks-kibbe-book-contract-smoking-gun/ verify the information? And https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/dick-armey-defends-million-deal-leave-freedomworks/story?id=18077760 ?
* http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/dick-armey-freedomworks-president-clashed-over-book-deal-84599.html 
* https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/01/freedomworks-foes-inside-and-out-jim-geraghty/
Should the information be restored, supported by the additional Mother Jones and ABC News articles? --Hipal (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Kibbe and Armey, Politico and National Review

message: To get  some idea if the cautionary labeling was accurate, I looked at editors scrubbing article. Some are almost certain Freedom Works or affiliated, i.e., Karapally, an SPA, and 38.140.165.74, which geolocates to Arlington, VA, and 98.204.52.203 to Washington, D.C. Activist (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAs and IP# scrubbing article 

message: I reverted the recent expansion  because it was not supported by the references without SYN problems and relying on the HuffPost ref that shouldn't be used per WP:RSP. There may be references in Cleta Mitchell that we could use, or others to be found. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleta Mitchell

message: Hi, my name is Michael and I work for FreedomWorks. I will present a few requests for your review, given my declared COI. Kindly provide feedback or get back to me if anything needs modification. The requests generally seek to update the article with quality information backed by reliable sourcing. I will begin with two brief new sections, and will then follow-up with other changes requested throughout the article, these being mostly additions. The requests are fully sourced and presented in full markup for your convenience. I will start with the first request below:
: Hi  The FreedomWorks Foundation section has been added to the page. Please refer to the crossed out sentence in the mockup below. It was not included in the page update I have done so far, because NewsMax is considered a deprecated source. If you have a reliable source to support the omitted statement, I will be happy to review it. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . I appreciate your assistance and time dedicated to review my request. I will have further requests down the line. Would you be willing to have a look at those when they're ready? No problem if you're short on time, as I can always submit other open requests. Thank you once again, MJrJohnson (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   You're welcome. Feel free to ping me on future requests and open them to all editors as well. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: The FreedomWorks Foundation is aimed, according to its website, at "educating and empowering Americans with the principles of individual liberty, small government, and free markets". As of 2018, it had $1.1 million in total assets. In 2020, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation donated $100,000, plus $275,000 to the FreedomWorks Foundation to "support the Save Our Country initiative". The Save Our Country initiative launched in April 2020 by the FreedomWorks Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Tea Party Patriots, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and other right-wing organizations "to push for a quick reopening of the states". The effort was part of a $5 million fundraising drive, as well as a push to "mobilize activists to join 'liberate' demonstrations in more than 10 states", according to The Guardian.
In January 2020, the Foundation released a report on congressional reform. The report states legislators "ceded many of its constitutionally delegated powers to the executive branch and concentrated most of the rest in the hands of congressional leadership." They continue that their proposals for regulatory reform, as well as changes to the budgetary process, "will be met with skepticism from the left, as will their dismissal of the federal bureaucracy in general as an 'unconstitutional fourth branch of government.'" Following the release of this report, FreedomWorks and other coalition members released a "Grading our Governors" scorecard on Governors' responses to handling the Coronavirus pandemic and its economic impact. Governor Ron DeSantis was one of nine to score an A.
The Foundation has a number of programs focused on FreedomWorks' reform goals. For instance, FreedomWorks launched a program titled Building Education for Students Together (BEST). According to Laura Zorc, FreedomWorks director of education reform, BEST advocates a "four to six-year plan to change out school boards", replacing their members with candidates "who represent their views". Emphasizing the "importance of parents", Zorc highlighted "trying to empower parents to know that it's your [their] job". As part of BEST, FreedomWorks provides activists with a 6-week course, some of its taught methods including organizing press conferences, tackling school board meetings, creating letter-writing campaigns and how to file ethics complaints. Among its slogans, BEST includes "Stop Racism. Stop Hate. Stop Critical Race Theory."
Another of its programs is its National Election Protection Initiative, launched in March 2021. The group's focus is to "support initiatives to educate poll workers and poll watchers, register voters and clean up voter rolls." The program will also drive deployment, registering voters, recruiting and training local activists, monitoring election procedures, and "identifying needed changes and reforms in election administration and law." The Foundation has also supported election reform in other states, such as Arizona, Georgia, and Florida by investing $10m in a state and federal effort.
: up to this point with minor edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: FreedomWorks Foundation

message: Please move the paragraph starting with "In 2011, FreedomWorks launched a Super PAC called FreedomWorks for America" to the start of this new section. I propose you delete the next sentence regarding supported candidates, given these will be mentioned elsewhere. Replace the latter, with this sentence to cap the paragraph:
FreedomWorks for America actively participates in U.S. House and Senate campaigns.
 Continue the section with:
Some of the candidates the PAC has supported include Representatives Mo Brooks and Ted Budd for the U.S. Senate. On the U.S. House level, endorsements have included Reps. Yvette Herrell (NM-02), Maria Elvira Salazar (FL-27), Burgess Owens (UT-04), Matt Rosendale (MT-AL), Mary Miller (IL-15), and Nancy Mace (SC-01).
Additionally, FreedomWorks for America was heavily involved in the Georgia U.S. Senate runoffs, reporting $578,392 in spending on printing, canvassing, and television ads for the Georgia run-offs.
The PAC notably endorsed former state solicitor general Ted Cruz early in 2010 before he abandoned his bid for state attorney general. He was again endorsed early in the Senate race while also receiving tea-party support. In July 12 and July 17 2012, the PAC recorded $71,000 in expenditures for this race.
 Please move the paragraph starting with "In the 2010 congressional elections, FreedomWorks endorsed a number of candidates, including Marco Rubio" to this location, in its entirety.
 Finish the section off with the following paragraph:
FreedomWorks for America has been known for being supporters of Reps. Thomas Massie, David Schweikert (AZ-06), Chip Roy (TX-21), Scott Perry (PA-10), Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Steve Chabot (OH-01), Dave Brat (VA-07), and Mark Meadows (NC-11).
 with minor edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedomworks For America

message: Hi, my name is Michael and I work for FreedomWorks. After the observations made above, I will copy edit and condense these requests to mere paragraphs for your consideration, given my declared COI. I will begin with two brief new sections, and will then follow-up with other changes requested throughout the article, these being mostly additions. The requests are fully sourced and presented in full markup for your convenience. I will restart with the first request below:
FreedomWorks Foundation
The FreedomWorks Foundation had $1.1 million in total assets as of 2018. In 2020, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation donated $100,000, plus $275,000 to the FreedomWorks Foundation to "support the Save Our Country initiative". The Save Our Country initiative launched in April 2020 by the FreedomWorks Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Tea Party Patriots, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, and other right-wing organizations "to push for a quick reopening of the states". The effort was part of a $5 million fundraising drive, as well as a push to "mobilize activists to join 'liberate' demonstrations in more than 10 states", according to The Guardian.
* Reason for this particular change: I believe actions pertaining to the FW Foundation are central to the organization's history and current aims, the article needing an update accordingly.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to engaging further. MJrJohnson (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, per the policy on inline citations, the quote  needs a citation to a reliable source. HouseBlastertalk 03:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi! Thank you for the tip: I honestly don't know how that escaped me! I have amended the submission accordingly, if you're at all willing to have another look. Thanks again, MJrJohnson (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking information out of the broader context of the references in that manner seems problematic per WP:POV and WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have  the request. As someone who politically disagrees with FreedomWorks, it looks fine to me from a WP:NPOV standpoint. Statements are attributed within the prose, and that might be unnecessary in this case. I do not see how a description of their activities would introduce bias, especially with the in-text attribution. What part of WP:NOT do you believe this runs afoul of, User:Hipal? Not sure what additional context would be needed. HouseBlastertalk 00:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. If it's not going to mention in the slightest the main points of the references, then minor information certainly doesn't belong. This is exactly the typical PROMO that we should expect from COI editors which we need to prevent in order to follow NPOV. --Hipal (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that the fact that these sources contain other information is not a reason to exclude this information. We can cite a book without including every detail it contains. If the paragraph does not contain the entire story, the solution should be to tell the entire story, not to remove the story. I agree the SBA loans and other controversies should be included in the article. IOW, I would argue the solution should be to go ahead and include that information, not remove this information. HouseBlastertalk 02:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need a new proposal that doesn't violate NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your responses. Now, while I'm grateful for your time reviewing and reversing, I am at a loss as to how the brief paragraph above "violates NOT and POV". After subsequent implementations and further reversals by the same two individuals all I have obtained are veiled references to apparent violations of policy without any specific examples being presented. I am trying to do what is asked of me, i.e. request edits that have taken a lot of time to research/copy edit, etc, while being reprimanded for attempting to do just that. While at least some editors have agreed with my content, this appears to be a problem with editing styles or preferences more than a policy-based dispute (e.g. editors disagreeing what should be included, not content quality itself). In view of this, I honestly don't understand how to proceed if editors will just go back and forth with my requests just being used as pawns. Who do I resort to for honest content reviews so we can move on? Should perhaps more people become involved? I appreciate your feedback so we can move forward. MJrJohnson (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, don't cherry pick information from references while ignoring the main points of those references. If the main points are not being given any mention, it's WP:UNDUE to mention the minor points. Cherry picking information to best present what your employer wants to present is WP:SOAP. --Hipal (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The rookie mistake of cherrypicking is the very foundation of climate change denial, and an editor working for a denialist organization will not necessarily understand what is wrong with it, so, as a service, I am linking our article on it: cherrypicking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no specifics have been addressed whatsoever. Could you please explicitly explain how the above request "seems problematic per WP:POV and WP:NOT"? As interlocutors between requesters and the encyclopedia, I would assume this is necessary? MJrJohnson (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is far, far too vague and used borderline euphemistic PR speak to avoid actually saying anything of substance. To put it yet another way, the proposal added content that was superficially supported by sources, but did so by stripping away the context from those sources. It appears this has already been explained to you several times, so if you have a problem with this explanation, you should ask more specific questions, or accept that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion and drop it. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Circling back