Talk:American Farm Bureau Federation

message: This article is actually bullshit. The American Farm Bureau has blessed little to do with farmers and a lot more to do with selling insurance. It was formed originally with the express intent of running the small farmer out of business. Elodoth 17:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article

message: Just out of curiosity, is it standard Wikipedia policy to have the entirety of an article consist of text from the organization's official site? Hashmir 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy?

message: :Image:Farm-bureau.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Farm-bureau.png

message: The American Farm Bureau closed its Park Ridge headquarters office a few years ago and consolidated all of its operations in Washington, D.C. Thus the D.C. office is the headquarters.
207.91.45.188 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Farm Bureau has only one office 

message: Is it worth noting somewhere on this article about the sale of the domain name fb.com by the American Farm Bureau Federation to Facebook for 8.5 million dollars? It's an event of note, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to put it in this article, so I'm raising the idea here first. Anjwalker  Talk 04:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain name sale 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on American Farm Bureau Federation. 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/20060822111203/http://www.fb.org:80/index.php?fuseaction=about.home to http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.home
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822111203/http://www.fb.org:80/index.php?fuseaction=about.home to http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=about.home
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) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Half of this page appears to be declarative statements asserting that the Bureau does only a world of good, and none of it sells a third-person perspective. ...It's practically an ad. Also, there is nothing on the page indicating the bureau's stance on climate change, which is more than a little relevant to agriculture.
I'm only even here because I'm researching the relationship between farmers and climate change, and wanted to check for evidence that the Bureau is the major farm-related body when it comes to denying it. ...I guess I found my evidence. Follow the money, indeed.
2603:9001:6B8A:8B00:21BE:9454:5E12:DD1 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy baloney, is this page propaganda? 

message: Most of this does read like brochure. Without basic stats on money (revenue sources from members vs political donors? what do they spend their money on?), org size, effectiveness, relevance today. And there are some controversies like its stance denying climate change (fairly partisan) and being coopted by big agriculture at the expense of small and indie farmers. Phil Wolff (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, this doesn't cover some basic information  

message: The distinctly biased tone of this article— which, like others have commented, seems to be a propaganda piece for a conservative, corporatist lobbying organization— piqued my interest, and I decided to do a little digging to find out who exactly wrote it. Interestingly enough, someone with the username CyndieSirekis has made three edits to the main page, and two to the talk page. In three edits occurring over two days in May 2006, the user replaced the entire previous content of the page with text described by others on the talk page as, "text from the organization's official site," "propaganda," and "actually bullshit." Additionally, it appears in March of 2007, this user erased the entire talk page, which consisted of a pretty thorough refutation of nearly every claim on the page.
After one google search of the string "CyndieSirekis," I found a link to a linkedin page for "Cyndie Sirekis - Director, Internal Communications - American Farm [Bureau]." (note: it appears that this linkedin page has been deleted, and that the google search is showing artifacted information from the page.) Clearly these goons can't even be bothered to make up an obfuscated username for their propaganda. 
Does anyone know how to get the main sections of this page reverted to its pre-2006 state, which was unbiased, albeit smaller? Surely this, when combined with the blatantly biased tone of the piece, is enough evidence to show that this is not factual information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.60 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyndie Sirekis 

message: It appears that the article was mostly overwritten with an edit in May 2018, with content copied directly from the Farm Bureau's website.  The pre-overwrite version has been restored, and a revdel has been requested for the copied material.  Please help by contributing to this now restored article.  Orville1974talk 01:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2018 content restored 

message: Take care of edits of this page; I've reviewed the edit section and I've discovered a disturbing pattern of edits removing information critical of the American Farm Bureau from this page. Previously, employees of the PR arm of the AFB were directly involved in making the edits. Be skeptical about future edits that censor critical information, especially anything from this 2012 article by Ian Shearn published by The Nation; this appears to be specifically targeted. Also targeted is information about the organization's lobbying, especially lobbying linked to the profit they derive from crop insurance.
Perhaps, given this pattern of events, it would be reasonable to get this page locked by admins?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.24.60 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The erased content and other issues happened long enough ago, that there's no reason to protect the page now (we want anyone to be able to contribute to the maximum extent possible).  If content starts disappearing again, or unsourced material is repetitively added, then addressing the editor making those changes near when they occur keeps the page open to well-meaning editors while minimizing the impact of disruptive editors.  Page protection (usually temporary) mostly occurs when multiple disruptive editors are making frequent changes to a page in a short time span. Orville1974talk 03:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern of Censorship, likely by Farm Bureau employees 

message: The lede of this article has a link to the Bureau disambiguation page, but none of the entries there fit the AFBF. Another entry is needed there, but what should it be? I am unsure, so I leave it for someone else to do, and to fix the link in the lede.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureau Disambiguation link 

message: This text was added: "The New Deal made the Farm Bureau the main organization for farmers. The Farm Bureau was hostile to the Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party (FLP), which represented small operators and favored radical programs. That left the FLP without power regarding farm economics."Richard M Valelly, Radicalism in the states: the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party and the American political economy (1989) p. 15. But several things about this addition need clarification. What does it mean to be "the main organization for farmers"? Existing text had already drawn a distinction between larger farmers and agricultural corporations, which the FB lobbied for, and smaller ones. As well, when did the events described in this text take place? The text talks about the New Deal, but was placed chronologically after WWII. Finally, just what is supposed to have happened? Was the FLP powerful? Did the FB replace it? How? Etc. PRRfan (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Deal in 1930s made the Farm Bureau the dominant voice--all historians agree on that --and largely ignored the voice of the Farmer Labor parties (esp Minnesota and nearby states), as explained at length by Valelly book. The Famer Labor parties all collapsed or were taken over by Democrats (esp in Minnesota). Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text needs clarification