Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression/Archive 1

message: "A recent survey?" What survey?
:Added a link for the survey mentioned in the article.  (It's , for reference.)  --Dachannien 13:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

message: May 9th changes:
Deleted portion to old reference 16 because the link was dead.  Please reinsert if a citable reference can be found.
Added to FIRE's political affiliation the fact that the current president is a liberal.
I'm not sure whether or not to categorize FIRE as a left or right wing organization. My guess is that FIRE is "right wing" in the same way as the ACLU is "left wing". i.e., supporters of FIRE and the ACLU are usually (though not always) to be found on the right and left respectively, but at the same time, both groups maintain neutrality w/r/t poltical candidates.
There are certaintly criticisms to be levelled at FIRE, however this is wikipedia, and all criticisms need to be sourced. Sdedeo 02:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, LTC, you should create a real account (simply writing "User:LTC" does not actually make you that user, and you are still listed as an anonyomous IP address.) Once you have registered an account, you may sign your name easily with four ~s. Sdedeo 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that the two sources you cite to establish that FIRE has been criticized as "stealth conservative" are both invalid. The SAFER group report you list I was unable to find on their website safercampus.org, and indeed, there is no mention at all of the group FIRE on their site. The book from Duke University you cite (The Myth of Political Correctness) was published in 1995. FIRE was founded around 1999, so it is impossible that that book could actually refer to FIRE. Again, Wikipedia articles cannot do original research or draw their own conclusions: they must only report on what other people have said; only if there is a verifiable and sourced accusation against FIRE can it be reported. Wikipedia is not the place for original journalism. Sdedeo 07:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FIRE and left/right (and POV)

message: :Hi LTC. I will put my comments in between yours indented like this.
k, Sdedeo, I work closely with SAFER and would be happy to provide you with the Backlash essays, though it might take a while for me to dig it up out of the archives from 2000.  Do you want them?  They also have a manual available that talks about FIRE, which is easier to get.  You might also try Columbia Spectator archives...  I believe there are several articles by Sarah Richardson, Jeff Senter, and Kaja Tretjak about FIRE and its background, sourcing the Backlash materials.
:Yes, we need them. If you can provide a weblink to someplace where they are hosted on line, that would be what we need.
Also, the Wilson book does not refer to FIRE, but to Harvey Silverglate and Alan Kors, the founders of FIRE.  You can probably find info about Wilson debating Kors somewhere if you google it.
:OK, very good. What does the book say about Silverglate and Kors?
There is a major problem with just including FIRE's own description of its work, which is what this 'information' is.  It's cut right from their own materials!  If people want a flattering depiction of the group, they can go to the website and read it there.  That is why I cut their descriptions of their work.  Because the way they are described is subjective and manipulative, which is what Wiki is trying to avoid with the whole sourcing thing, right?  If you research the work FIRE has done you will see that these case descriptions are extremely manipulative, and are in fact often so manipulative as to be false.  For example, FIRE will include information on certain cases and not others.  That is simple manipulation.  But when you look at the cases they include, if you research them, you will see that they often describe the facts of a case manipulatively: "we defended a confirmed socialist," when that fact has nothing to do with the issue at stake, or inaccurately: "students were harassed for hanging American flags," when students from the school will report that no such incident took place.
:The article does indeed quote from FIRE's PR. Every time it does so, it puts the information in quotes and says "according to FIRE, 'blah'." This is how it has to be done. It would be contrary to wikipedia practice in all other articles to do otherwise. Even when you have, say, a white supremacist group, the article says "According to 'White Power Inc.', their stated goals are to "defend America."" If you have disagreements with the description of particular cases, definitely provide sources for criticism, and we will include them
To include manipulative information is a political decision.
Wikipedia isn't truly informative if it's possible for highly biased sources to be quoted with no notes about who they are.  The National Review as a source, with no information about what kind of source it is in the article (available through a link doesn't count!)?  Problematic.  The group itself, unsourced?  Very problematic.
:Again, anything contentious that is taken from FIRE's PR is sourced as such. In the opening paragraph, the information about the founders is explicitly sourced to the National Review. You may not like the NR, that is fine. Wikipedia is not supposed to pass judgement on these sorts of things. Look, I don't like NR either, and when I see them used as a source I take the info with a grain of salt. That's how it should be.
When it comes to 'original journalism,' there is also the issue, of course, of where control of the media lies.  That's another issue, but it is relevant to how informative it is possible for Wikipedia to be.  Where you're drawing your lines is fairly arbitrary.
:Not really. "Original journalism" here would mean, for example, including information about a phone call that you made yourself and whose details are not published in any other media source. Again, the issue here is sources: wikipedia needs them.
I take major issue with comparing FIRE to the ACLU.  These groups are COMPLETELY different, and it gives FIRE a lot of legitimacy to compare them to a very old, very respected organization.  Why are they completely different?  Because the ACLU is a LEGAL organization that takes precedent-setting cases, whereas FIRE is a MEDIA organization that focuses on cases it can get into the media.  It is generally not concerned with precedent, or even winning its cases.  FIRE often takes cases with no merit; cases that it expects to lose.  In addition, the ACLU holds to clearly articulated beliefs about constitutional law.  FIRE has no such standards.  It is focused on how cases will play in the court of public opinion.
:That is a value judgement. The comparison of FIRE to the ACLU is only in as much as they both claim not to have stated political bias, both claim to handle civil liberties cases, etc. etc. If you can provide a link to a source that says, for example, that FIRE doesn't care about winning its cases, then definitely provide it.
I could write a book about the stuff I've learned about groups like FIRE, the Center for Individual Rights, etc. trying to compare themselves to the ACLU and infiltrate local ACLU groups.  By comparing FIRE to the ACLU you are handing them a major victory when some intern at CNN checks their Wiki entry for info before putting them on. 
:Nobody is "handing" any victories to anybody. Please do write a book about your experiences, or at least a news article. Then it can be cited in the FIRE article (presuming it is published by an independent source, and is not just on a geocities homepage.) Again, wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing to first appear.
(That's also why Harvey's disingenuous portrayal of himself as "left-wing" is flawed.  He'll tell you a million zillion times about how he defended the black panthers once in the 60s, and how he was a member of the ACLU.  But what has he done since the 60s?  And does it even matter what the National Review says about him, if Thor is good buddies with the editors and can have them say whatever he wants?)
:I don't know much about Silverglate. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, please find an article criticizing Silverglate's "left wing cred" and it, and information in it, will be immediately placed in the article.
You seem very well-meaning and thoughtful, but I think it would be the right thing to do if you did some research before assuming you know where this group is coming from.  Once you even make it a debatable issue that they are conservative, they win!  That is their whole strategy.  The progressive groups they attack are then stuck trying to explain to well-meaning liberals and journalists with the attention span of a gnat how this group isn't really concerned with civil liberties, that actually it is conservative, etc., while FIRE gets to slam away at progressives, all the while claiming that they are fighting for progressive values.  Progressives should at least have a fair fight, where everyone is clear on what the groups involved stand for.
:LTC, all this is fine. But I think in this exchange I've done my best to be clear about what wikipedia does, and how it has to function. Again, everything you are saying could very well be included in the article as long as the information appears, attributed, to a source outside wikipedia. I am sorry, but this is how it has to go. Let me put it another way: you are going about this the wrong way. You should write an article for a newspaper or magazine (it doesn't have to be the Village Voice, it can be a local independent or student newspaper.) Once that happens, claims the article makes can appear in the FIRE article (indeed, I will include them myself.)
It's not really your fault--it's a huge problem with the current model of 'neutrality' and the state of the media that people who are willing to lie usually get to frame the debate.  LTC 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very glad this debate has remained civil. Really I hope you can see this is about the need to provide independent secondary/primary sources. To put it another way, FIRE has put "its side" out there; it's up to FIRE's critics to put theirs out there. Wikipedia can then deal with it. I don't think the world would be a better place if everyone followed "wikipedia rules", but this is how wikipedia works, call it crazy. Yours, Sdedeo 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on SAFER etc. 

message: Somebody removed the link to the "Uncovering the campus right" bibliography in the External links section. I usually don't care that much about the "External links", they're really not worth fighting over unless someone puts something really offensive in (links to hate sites, spam, etc. etc.) But I was a little nervous about the bibliography link, because none of the books in the bibliography mention FIRE in the title, and there is no suggestion or discussion of which ones might be relevant. I agree that the person who removed the bibliography link was correct in doing so, and the link should better appear in, e.g., the stealth conservative entry. Sdedeo 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I looked through the bibliography, and it seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with FIRE, even peripherally.  As such, it should not be in this article.  Who added it, anyway?  Rogue 9 06:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi LTC -- you should log in when you use wikipedia now that you have an account. This helps you keep track of edits, communicate with others, etc. etc. Sdedeo 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What Sdedeo said.  Also, Sommers, Kors, and any separate organizations are not FIRE.  The link would be appropriate to articles on these people and entities, but unless you have a source that is relevant to FIRE in a way that is readily apparent instead of in a way that's dependent upon the reader already being highly familiar with the organization, that link doesn't belong here.  The bibliography doesn't demonstrate a whole lot; for instance, if you were to link to a source in the article on Protest Warrior saying that Kfir Alfia, one of the founders, is also a member of the Austin chess club or something, what would that demonstrate about Protest Warrior?  That all chess players are center-right to libertarian protesters?  It wouldn't prove a thing, and neither does this.  Rogue 9 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not a lawyer; just a humble music student who was purposefully taught a very large vocabulary as a child.  I'm a member of Protest Warrior myself, so they were the first example to spring to mind.  My own political views are scattered all over the place; I can't really be defined as right or left overall.  On issues of civil rights, though, I'm heavily libertarian.  I take the First Amendment absolutely literally and apply it to everyone; anyone has the right to say what they wish, but I also reserve my right to tell them they're wrong if I feel that this is so.  From my viewpoint, there is no reason for censorship of any sort; to quote Justice Lewis Brandeis, sunlight is the best disinfectant.  So I suppose in that sense, you could say I know that much about them because I am one, though I virulently disagree with the Libertarian Party on many other issues.  Rogue 9 11:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Uncovering the campus right" bibliography

message: Fine to include Greg L.; however, in order that the funding/leadership section not grow without bounds, I'd like to suggest that we restrict further mentions to prominent members of the board of directors, the board of advisors, and presidents. We don't want to include everyone on the payroll (unless they do something like shoot the president or personally arrest Osama Bin Laden.) 
Also, Rogue, can you provide a source very soon for Greg L.'s "self description" as a liberal? Thanks, Sdedeo 23:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one , and added it. Sdedeo 23:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lukianoff is one of the organization's most prominent members; his job is to be their public face.  I don't plan on adding the entire payroll, but we would be remiss to omit him.  As for that self-description, he said it when speaking for FIRE in Brainwashing 101.  Glad you found another source; I would hate to have to source the video, as it would virtually preclude people on dialup from accessing it.  Rogue 9 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Including Greg L.

message: The article's blurb on FIRE's involvement in the anti-Semitism controversy at Columbia seems to contradict it's source.  "FIRE has been involved in another Columbia campus controversy, this time against both the ACLU and the University administration, in supporting the actions of the David Project, a group claiming a pattern of anti-Semitic harassment by professors in the Middle Eastern studies department"  The article that is sourced, however, says that the New York affiliate of the ACLU was also critical of the administration's report.  Unless the national organization held a different position than the NYCLU for some reason, I think there might be a mistake.  Rogue 9 11:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets a little tricky. The NYCLU and FIRE were opposed on the David Project stuff, and FIRE made a big deal about it , but the NYCLU and the administration may well themselves have been opposed. (There is a third subtlety which is that there is the "Columbia CLU", which is a student group; they seem to be more often allied with FIRE; we used to include some of that info, but because it's just a student group and the CLU student groups don't have to report back to any higher authority, we decided to not mention it.) Sdedeo 15:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Am I reading that correctly?  The NYCLU actually questioned whether students have the right to speak against their professors?  So much for civil liberties...  Thanks.  Rogue 9 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ...students should be free to advance their criticism of professors in student newspapers and in off-campus publications; at rallies; in their course evaluations and in private conversations and even in their classrooms, if invited to do so by the professor. But the right of students to an appropriate learning environment does not immunize them from ideas that they find provocative, disturbing or even offensive. And they cannot expect that that their professors will trim the cut of their convictions so as not to offend the sensibilities of their students. 
Not quite the plainest of statements; they switch from talking about a student's ability to criticize a professor to a student demanding that a professor not hold or profess a belief. My feeling is that you have to balance these things against the need to "manage" a classroom; students do not have an absolute right to say anything in seminar. On the other hand, a good professor will know how to manage and promote dissention within a class. Just another reason to pick your college carefully, I guess. Sdedeo 23:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: David Project involvement

message: Greg Lukianoff has been named interim president of FIRE now that David French is leaving the staff.  216.249.144.27 19:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FIRE's got a new president

message: Please note: talk pages are for discussions about the mechanics of the article (what to include, what not to include, how to include it), and are not a place to discuss the merits of the article subject itself. Thanks! Sdedeo 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've gone and archived material from August to December 2005; the archived material is here. If anyone disagrees, please absolutely feel free to revert. Sdedeo (tips) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: archive

message: Hey, Kaisershatner and others, I have no strong opinion one way or another as to whether the affiliation information should be in the footnote or on the main page. My fix was intended to be a pure copyedit -- there was some reference nesting, leading to some sort of wierd reference list recursion on the actual page that completely broke the reference list. I've never seen that happen before. If there's a way to do what you were trying to do without breaking the ref list, I'd be fine with that. Jpers36 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was my mistake, I think I can unravel it. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote / Reference Fix 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. 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/20080411133710/http://www.ffeusa.org/html/briefs/index.html to http://www.ffeusa.org/html/briefs/index.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) 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.issues-views.com/index.php?print=1&article=1029
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115084703/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2011/10/13/1562740/facebook-post-gets-college-student.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/13/1562740/facebook-post-gets-college-student.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) 14:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. 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/20110928041444/http://www.peta2.com/COLLEGE/f-eliana.asp to http://www.peta2.com/COLLEGE/f-eliana.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071230125334/http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=NTAxZWI5MjllOWM5NDg5MjBiYWIyOGI3ODZmMGFlMTk= to http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTAxZWI5MjllOWM5NDg5MjBiYWIyOGI3ODZmMGFlMTk=
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 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified