Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

message: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9069.html htom (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <$0.02>After a quick perusal of the article and this page I think the article's claims of bias on this page may be a bit overwrought (full disclosure, I'm somewhat sympathetic to FIRE's stated goals). I agree that the POV may be a touch slanted against FIRE, but I don't see concerted edit-warring at this point, certainly nothing approaching what is seen on other articles with political overtones. I urge both sides to engage with each other in the spirit of good faith and resolve issues according to WP policies such as reliable sourcing and WP:BLP. Reasonable efforts by reasonable people should be able to reach consensus.</$0.02> Ronnotel (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've thought this page has been pretty bad in the past, actually. I've noticed enormous focus, almost a witchhunt, to show that FIRE is right wing. You can look through the history or even this short discussion to see that I'm right. Wikipedia can't be perfect, but lets stay on the right track. The article in its current form is great, but I wonder how long it will stay that way. 128.62.148.193 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above...barring any objections, I think the above section should simply be removed. For example, both conservatives and liberals can praise or support Martin Luther King Jr. - this doesn't mean that he automatically would be classified as part of one or the other faction. Nesodak (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted in accordance with WP:SYN. Nesodak (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of that material is salvageable, though I agree it shouldn't be used in a guilt by association context. But I don't think the article per se can't have some indication that FIRE has received compliments from right-leaning or religious organizations. It may well have been credited by left wing or liberal organizations also. Can we work on keeping some of that stuff? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to ask - are the party affiliation(s) or supposed left/right tendencies of individual named people associated with this organization really relevant in this article? If so, why? Nesodak (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - if FIRE is praised universally by right-leaning institutions or people, it suggests that the organization itself shares their values, or that the values FIRE stands for, such as freedom of speech and religion, are themselves valued by the right. Either way, I don't think it is a violation of NPOV to note the organization is related to conservative organizations (and nothing to be ashamed of, imo). Kaisershatner (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That also seems like a bit of synthesis to me. One could also arrive at the conclusion that, in the course of defending all speech, FIRE has simply run across more cases of conservative speech being squelched than of liberal or centrist speech being squelched. That is to say, the bias doesn't rest with FIRE, but rather with the academic administrative community. True or untrue? Who knows. But the article should be careful not to couch either possibility as being the truth unless it can somehow present reliable sources (and not mere opinion pieces) that strongly support one of them. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely concur...if someone finds a good reference from a reliable source stating that FIRE was, for example, a fascist organization, I'd help format it for the article. But, as Wikipedia authors, we shouldn't be making these determinations, only quoting them. Nesodak (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the article makes numerous references to activities of associated individuals outside their role as members of FIRE. If someone worked with FIRE and subsequently left to do something else, or makes public statements as a private citizen and not as a FIRE representative, why would that be included in the FIRE article as opposed to simply in the article on that individual? Once again, this seems to be synthesis - an attempt to divine a political ideology for FIRE by citing various sources which do not even discuss this organization. Nesodak (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The associations with ACTA, ADF and DHFC have been noted by WP:RS places such as the Chronicle of Higher Education; you may think CHF is being unfair, but can only cite responses by another outside WP:RS or an official response from FIRE. In other words, WP:SYN applies only to editors, not sources. Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a consistent trend that FIRE leaders move on to work in conservative organizations, it does suggest that FIRE's work is ideologically compatible in some ways with those other groups. This does not mean that FIRE's work is not also compatible with leftish groups. I am sensitive to the concern of guilt by association, but I don't exactly understand the objection - from what I am reading here, FIRE does get money from conservative groups (and others) and also shares some personnel with them (and others), while at the same time defending liberals and having a self-described liberal CEO. What's wrong with that description? (I'm asking, not asserting). Kaisershatner (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing my point...I'm asking why the activities/associations of these particular individuals are relevant to the FIRE article at all. Why is it necessary to note that a board member describes themselves as a Democrat or a classical liberal or whatever? Or why is it necessary to note the subsequent activities of former leaders? What do those things have to do with FIRE itself? Nesodak (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, what does this ref say about FIRE? It may say something about Silverglate, but has nothing to do with FIRE. It seems to me that FIRE says "we are non-political", and the authors of this article are attempting to prove the opposite by synthesizing things like the above article in an attempt to prove FIRE wrong. It would be one thing if we quoted and cited a New York Times article that classified FIRE as right-wing; it's quite another to "build a case" on this page by assembling scraps of unconnected information to attempt to prove a right-wing tendency through innuendo. Nesodak (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I get it now. Your point: why characterize FIRE at all from a political viewpoint? I would have to think about it, but maybe the answer is that in articles such as this there is often a "criticism" section (see: Amnesty International maybe for example). Seems to me that the article should reflect criticism/opposition to FIRE, and much of that appears to be focused on its supposed ideology. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. I don't think there would be anything particularly wrong with an outright statement that FIRE is right-wing, or left-wing, or libertartian, or apolitical - so long as we were directly quoting the opinion of a reliable source, and not stating or implying our own opinion based on an "investigation" of the available literature. Nesodak (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A criticism section with a one-liner about their accused political orientation (if well sourced) and their response would be an excellent addition to the article. Currently half the article is devoted to back-and-forth on this, and should be deleted. 131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "If there is a consistent trend that FIRE leaders move on to work in conservative organizations, it does suggest that FIRE's work is ideologically compatible..." I want to note that this statement seems very pernicious to me. It's not Wikipedia's job to 'suggest' things. That is original research, plain and simple (or worse). --Dcfleck (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In reference to the original post by Sdedeo, I agree that FIRE seems to be markedly concerned with its public image (to the point that its president has taken the time to write several long blog posts about others' perception of FIRE). So I think a "external criticisms and FIRE's reaction" section merits consideration, as the organization itself seems to dedicate a good deal of its time to this very issue. Also, when did FIRE issue a statement about the ethnic diversity of its staff? As far as I can tell, its staff and board are exclusively white (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that). Jsmill1806 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIRE accuses Wikipedia of mudslinging 

message: I'm the person the FIRE blog has accused of being an "internet-obsessive", having an axe to grind, and so forth. I've done a lot of work on the article, but I think it's pretty clear (if you do want to go back in the histories) that whatever opinions I express elsewhere, I've done my best to hold to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and all the other good things in the work here.
You can read some talk page material here if you're not convinced by my bona fides. I should add, by the way, that I've taken down my original remarks on FIRE I made at OpenLeft, which I felt in retrospect were overly harsh and rhetorical; you can see the post here. Speaking personally, I don't particularly want to be "famous on Instapundit".
As I said in a private e-mail to Greg, FIRE's director and author of the blog post, everyone is welcome to edit the page, including FIRE employees; on an article such as this, most editors are going to have their own opinions. If everyone hews to the spirit and letter of the various policies, things will grind along well. Sdedeo (tips) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:COI, FIRE employees are discouraged from editing the content of the article although they are welcome to engage in discussions on the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In the interests of consensus and neutrality, I'd suggest that FIRE employees-- and members of organizations critical/supportive/being sued by FIRE refrain from editing the page. I think our main goals at the moment should be to fix the references, cut away most of the semantic argument about whether they're conservative, conservative-aligned, conservative-friendly, etc, and build an article about what they are doing rather than what pigeonhole they belong in. There's plenty of reputable sources we can use to this end and I don't think we need interference from partisans-- for or against. 131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: note from [[User:Sdedeo]]

message: OK the bottom line is the article sucks at the moment. I hope I'm not offending the people who have put hard work into it, it's just that it has accreted too much back-and-forth to be readable. This has long since past the point of WP:DUE.
I'd like to propose that we resolve this political affiliation thing once and for all. Kaisershatner and other suggested a criticisms section: I think that's a great idea, consistent with articles on interest groups on the Left, Right and center. If someone finds a WP:RS that documents that they are conservative or some variation thereof, let's use that source, quote their language, and leave it at that.
Except for the two sentences and the footnote that we use for this, the rest of the article should be about FIRE's mission, structure and activities. A great many citations are from blogs, opinion articles, FIRE's own website, and the Columbia student paper. The latter two might have some applicability, but the rest should go, and any otherwise unsourced statements with them. There's plenty on FIRE out there from reputable sources.
It seems like everyone is working to improve the article, so this is more a "rally the troops" than a "shame on you" rant. :)
131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely - a separate section for criticisms would be a great help, making the article much clearer (instead of a muddled accretion of factoids people have tossed in for purposes of refuting or supporting certain viewpoints) and allowing editors to more easily ascertain whether the article has POV issues or not. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring the Article 

message: When I was working on the citation templates, I noticed this article is really reliant on self-published sources, particularly by FIRE itself. I think this is fine for things like the membership of their boards and their claimed mission statement, but in discussions of their activities, or anything possibly contentious, we need to replace them with third-party sources or possibly preface statements with something like "According to FIRE, ...". Thoughts? Nesodak (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This one's actually pretty easy. Most of the cases FIRE has handled have a "case" page, and they usually link to independent sourcing of each case there. The downside is that they usually don't provide a direct link to a third-party web resource, but rather a locally-hosted PDF (ugh) of the article they are citing. We should probably be careful that we don't pick up any opinion pieces this way, but at least some of the articles they cite are actually neutral discussions of an issue where FIRE was consulted as a commentary source by the reporter. --DachannienTalkContrib 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Nesodak and Dachannien on this. Also, we want to make sure that FIRE isn't cherry picking their reliable sources. 131.96.91.156 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources

message: Ugh, I'm not sure how this article's selection of cases and issues advocated by FIRE was arrived at. Looking over them, most (not all) seem to set up FIRE in opposition to traditional left-wing groups, like minorities, feminists, the ACLU, etc. I'm not getting this in looking over the claims on their website, where they show support for various people and causes across the ideologicial spectrum. I'm not sure if the apparent slant in this article is intentional or a reflection of coverage in the press. I'll see what I can do to dig up reliable press reporting on FIRE activities - cases that didn't receive notable coverage should probably be trimmed from the article. Would definitely appreciate any help. Nesodak (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to start would be to look for references to FIRE in "national" or major newspapers such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, etc. I did find this on Columbia, but it looks to be a different issue unrelated to anything discussed in the article:  Jsmill1806 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: OK this sounds petty, but it also needs some better formatting. Right now it reads like a wall of text, whatever else is done to improve it. Wellspring (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen worse "walls of text" in articles before, but you're still right - the article could use some reorganization, even if we were to decide that the content itself is perfect. I guess my suggestion would be, instead of having a section called "cases", have separate sections for each type of case that FIRE responds to, and include a couple of notable examples in each (preferably ones that have gotten a lot of third-party media coverage, enabling us to flesh out each of those sections more). --DachannienTalkContrib 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of cases and issues 

message: Is it just me, or are many of the FIRE web site links dead? I tried reference 34 and reference 27 without success. Reference 29 worked, on the other hand.
Could someone please take the time to fix these references? Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The FIRE links apparently break if the URL contains a "PHPSESSID" parameter. Remove that and they work properly. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links? 

message: To take one hot button left/right issue, FIRE does a reasonably good job of supporting free speech on the Israel-Paestine conflict. They've defended professors accused of anti-Semitism, as well as the right of people to put up anti-Muslim posters in the subway. 
A lot of their supporters seem to be conservatives, of the sort I'd see on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a lot of their cases seem to be conservative issues, like the rights of Christian campus organizations, and opposition to "civility" codes. But they're at least free-speech conservatives who are consistent about defending free speech for everyone. 
If we do have WP:RSs like the Chronicle of Higher Education that note their conservative affiliations, that should be notable enough to include. They weren't created in a political vacuum. Readers should be able to look at the facts and come to their own conclusions about that. --Nbauman (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, how many times does FIRE itself have to deal with this issue before we stop seeing stuff about FIRE being conservative?   Their issues are conservative issues? I was unaware that defending freedom of association and speech was solely a "conservative issue".   That they happen to defend conservative groups on occasion is not evidence they are "conservative".  Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, has made it quite clear he is no conservative.  Why are so many people so hell-bent on seeing FIRE labeled a conservative group? Such a quest speaks more about the political leanings of those so fixated on this issue than it does the political leanings of FIRE. But given the laughable characterization of the "Israeli/Palestinian issue" by the above commenter, it doesn't take a genius to figure out his political affiliation.74.138.45.132 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How many times does FIRE itself have to deal with this issue? Are you saying that an announcement by FIRE that they are not conservative should be the ultimate determiner? I also doesn't see what the above commenters own political opinions have to do with anything. I'm sure he does have political opinions, as do I, and do you, and does FIRE (and I fail to see what is so 'laughable' about his/her opinion of the "Israel/Palestinian" issue, or even what that leaning is). -124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most people can figure out that if an organization is actually conservative it would have no problem admitting as much, so, yes, FIRE's declaration is meaningful.  It is certainly more meaningful than ludicrous assertions that defending religious liberty and free speech in regards to "civility codes" and speech codes(which haved been deemed Unconstitutional EVERY TIME the issue has been adjudicated at the federal court level)is somehow unimpeachable evidence that FIRE is conservative. That so many commenters here claim otherwise is an indictment of the censorious Left in this country.  And as many commentators have pointed out, it is not hard to understand why FIRE is mislabeled, given the fact that the campus censors FIRE regularly combats fall almost exclusively on the left of the political spectrum. I also must add that I find it hilarious that commenters point to the supposed political leaning of FIRE's board as their primary "evidence"(which in this case is a euphemism for bullshit)for the claims that FIRE is conservative, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Greg Lukianof is to the left of Sean Penn.74.134.145.218 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: how these folks stand on  Second Amendment to the United States Constitution issues, particularly about people's right to carry firearms on campuses?  This is an "education" and "rights" issue that is discussed quite a lot in some circles.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To my understanding, FIRE doesn't take a stance on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Crc32 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody know 

message: Hi, I would like to suggest some edits to FIRE’s wikipedia page. Due to an affiliation with the organization, I am posting those edits here as suggestions in order to not violate Wikipedia’s ethics code. Below is a list of basic changes that should be made in order to update the information on FIRE’s organizational structure. Additionally, I have provided a list of citation updates in order to help correct the issue of “may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject”. 
Text Edits:
1. Correction in Introduction (Out of date case count and bad reference)
Old Language: FIRE lists over 170 such instances on its website.[2] 
New Language: FIRE lists over 400 such instances on its website. https://www.thefire.org/cases/?limit=all  
1. Correction in Introduction (Out of date board information)
Old Language: Silverglate remains the chairman of FIRE's board,[4] while Kors is Chairman Emeritus. 
New Language: In 2015, after almost a decade serving as chairman of FIRE’s Board of Directors,  Silverglate passed the leadership position to longstanding FIRE board member Daniel Shuchman. Silverglate remains a member of FIRE’s board.  https://www.thefire.org/about-us/board-of-directors-page/ https://www.thefire.org/harvey-silverglate-on-10-years-as-chairman-of-fires-board-daniel-shuchman-elected-new-chair/
2. Correction in “Issues” (This section is formatted in a way that makes it seem that FIRE may fund student groups. This is not the case.)
Old Language: FIRE has also voiced support for freedom of association by funding and operation of "expressive" student organizations, including campus religious organizations that may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religious belief in membership (for example at Tufts University[16][17] and at the Milwaukee School of Engineering)[18] and fraternities that may engage in "off-color"[19] or "misogynistic"[20] speech.
New Language: FIRE has also voiced support for freedom of association for student groups. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765589445/Religion-on-campus-Status-of-religious-student-groups-is-challenged-by-court-ruling.html?pg=all http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/news/administration/article_4b912df2-0091-11e3-9444-0019bb30f31a.html
3.Correction in “University Rating” (FIRE’s ratings do not solely rely on the speech code examples listed.)
Old Language: The foundation gathers together each university's various harassment and hate speech policies, as well as any "Advertised Commitments to Freedom of Speech". 
New Language: The foundation gathers together each university's various speech codes, as well as any "Advertised Commitments to Freedom of Speech". 
4.Correction in “Leadership” (FIRE has dissolved its Board of Advisors.)
Remove: As of 2008, FIRE's Board of Advisors included the following notable people:[27]
T. Kenneth Cribb, former Reagan official.
Nat Hentoff, author and columnist.
Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Wendy Kaminer, lawyer, feminist, and social critic.
Leonard Liggio, author, law professor, and board member of several libertarian think tanks.
Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute.
John Searle, Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley.
Christina Hoff Sommers, author and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
5.Correction of “Campus Freedom Network” section heading. (the Campus Freedom Network is now called FIRE Student Network)
Old Heading: Campus Freedom Network
New Heading: FIRE Student Network 
5.Correction in “Campus Freedom Network”. (the Campus Freedom Network is now called FIRE Student Network)
Old Language: FIRE now has a Campus Freedom Network.
New Language: FIRE maintains a FIRE Student Network.thefire.org/student-network http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azhar-majeed/how-college-students-can-promote-free-speech_b_8923544.html
5.Correction in “Campus Freedom Network”. (FSN membership number is much higher now, the reference listed has the FSN membership at the bottom of pg 29)
Old Language: It consists of 3,000 students dedicated to FIRE's mission and it seeks to establish a social network for supporters of free speech rights on college campuses. 
New Language: It consists of over 10,000 members dedicated to FIRE's mission and it seeks to establish a social network for supporters of free speech rights on college campuses. https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/29162928/AR_Final_Web_2_29_ISSU.pdf
Reference List Updates. The sentences listed here are copied from the existing wiki text, the only new aspect is the updated references. For sentences that needed additional references (not replacements) I did not re-link the pre-existing references:
Updated Reference in Intro: “FIRE was founded by Alan Charles Kors, a libertarian professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil-liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” http://chronicle.com/article/New-Group-Founded-by-Alan-Kors/32252
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation, and has represented the causes of parties with varied political viewpoints, including conservative http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/Student-sues-Blinn-College-says-free-speech-6275705.php and religious http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/feb/27/cal-state-university-sacramento-campus-groups/ student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA, https://web.archive.org/web/20110928041444/http://www.peta2.com/COLLEGE/f-eliana.asp and Professor Ward Churchill. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3834953
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation. It has represented conservative, liberal, and religious student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA and Professor Ward Churchill.
Add an Additional Reference to the sentence: FIRE has taken stances on campus sexual misconduct policies; for example, it denounced the American Association of University Women's report on sexual harassment as "fatally flawed"[12] and sided with the defendants in joining[13] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109157507746082222 an amicus brief in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions et al.[14]
Update Reference in “Issues”: Another issue is opposition to campus "security fees" that some campuses impose on organizations hosting controversial or unpopular speakers on the theory that they should pay for extra security the colleges deem necessary due to the likelihood of demonstrations and disruption of the events. http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/07/boise-state-u-charged-libertarian-studen http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265399/bill-ayers-and-free-speech-stanley-kurtz
Add an Additional Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The sequence of events is fully detailed in a FIRE press release, issued May 6, 2004.[28] http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/06/local/me-calpoly06
Updated Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The author noted that it "applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality". https://www.thefire.org/victory-at-university-of-delaware-3/ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-shermer-lukianoff14apr14-story.html
Updated Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The chancellor finally apologized to the employee-student after mounting criticism from FIRE, the ACLU, and other free speech groups. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121538889902431161
Update Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/Private universities”: In 2010, FIRE criticized DePaul University for denying recognition to a group advocating for decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States stating that student groups must "be congruent with our institutional goals regarding the health and well-being of our students." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/depauls_pot_problem.php
Jfarmz (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I have updated the general info, but did not change certain classifications that you have requested to be changed, judging that they should probably stay the way that they are. Regards, VB00 (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made several changes, including an address change, as several items have become further out of date. This includes some, but not all, of those proposed by Jfarmz above. In addition, I made a few updates not included above, that are now pertinant. Crc32 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Requests - Out of Date Information  

message: Please explain this revert of yours. The conservative and category stubs need to go because i said in my edit summary the talk page and the article itself doesnt even say anything about the org's political ideology. Flaughtin (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't have an opinion on the categories. The page is on my watchlist and I noticed that someone changed "Executive Director" to "Executive Directorc", so I reverted it. buidhe 23:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't just revert that you reverted a whole bunch of other things as well. per this convo i will remove the template and stubs. In the future please be more careful when you revert. Flaughtin (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic revert 

message: I don't see any discussion of the history of FIRE, including its name change. Bhami (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needed