Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies

message: I added a criticism section, because the article currently reads like an advertisement for the group, without the least-bit of criticism  for what is in reality a highly controversial organization. The article didn't even include the mention that the group is considered neoconservative, with all the controversy aurrounding that ideology. Nevertheless, the article currently still has NPOV issues due to undue weight issues and such. Ngchen 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While i agree all articles should have a bit of criticism, it should be sourced. They certinly claim to be bi-partisan several times on their website, and have promoted the creation of bi-partisan commities in the us government. I'd think a strong citation is needed to call FDD neoconservative (although i see were you could get that idea) especially with the negative conertations with that word.Hypnosadist 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The funders have been mentioned, so one knows which side they are on. 'Whose bread I eat - whose song I sing' is the saying for that and always true when you look close enough. When you know who pays you know the side, probably no explicit criticism or appraisal needed. About most NGOs, who are not accountable to anyone, you do not know who funds them, so this is a welcome exception here. 2001:8003:A921:6300:1994:DC34:BF3A:F668 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

text: According to the International Relations Center, "[FDD] has become a prominent member of the web of neoconservative-aligned think tanks, a group that includes the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, and Freedom House." (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1475) See the FDD's board members and board of advisors; whether Democrat or Republican (mostly R), it largely reads like a "Who's who" in American Neoconservatism. Therefore, IMHO, referring to FDD as "Neoconservative" is self-evident from the information provided by the organization itself, and in no way is a moral judgement.  MrLou 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Forget IRC, have you actually read the articles on FDD's website? The ideology espoused within the vast majority of these articles largely meets the definition of Neoconservative, especially in terms of foreign relations. The term is not a slam; It's an accurate definition.  MrLou 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree, I don't believe one can call a thinktank neoconservative when one of its members is Donna Brazile, the former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000. The piece from the IRC definitely raises the Wikipedia Red Flag Wikimam 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Based on the fact that the information on this page was quite outdated, as well as in dispute, I thought it would make sense to completely update it. So based on the comments above, I have replaced the information that used to be here with newer information from the FDD web site and Annual Report. I have also removed the NPOV dispute tag. If anyone disagrees, please don't revent to the old information and start an edit war. Simply update any of the information that is currently there with whatever edits you may have. Larryfooter 21:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to readd a criticism section, and have placed the NPOV tag back. The reason is that the edit makes the organization look like an angel (probably because organizations tend to write positively about themselves), without delving into controversies. The FDD's opponents include both paleoconservatives (with the reference to the American Conservative Magazine report, as well as antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo), as well as anti-war liberals and anti-war people in general. Without including such opposing views, the article cannot be neutral. But even with a drastically expanded criticism section, the article still would not read like an encyclopedia article without major reorganization to neutrally present the organization in question. Ngchen 15:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the neocon and pro-war references. How can a group with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board be neocon? And just because one web site labels them as pro-war does not make it so. This implies that these people are in favor of as much war as possible which is simply not true. Regarding the NPOV tag, you can't just slap up an NPOV tag forever and wait for someone to re-write the article - that tag has been up there for over a year - and it's time for it to come down. If you don't like what the article says, then *edit* it! That's what is great about wikipedia. But trying to keep an NPOV tag up for more than a year without making the edits to remove the non-NPOV items is not proper wiki-ediquitte. Larryfooter 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am forced to revert the deletion. I don't know about the two people you mentioned and their politics. Regardless, trying to draw inferences from the membership fails WP:OR. And FWIW, the Christian Science Monitor has a reputation for being a reliable source. Globalsecurity.org is considereded reasonably reliable too by military buffs and the like. If you do a search at antiwar.com, or the liberal commondreams.org, you'll find plenty of criticism. One can hardly accuse the American Conservative magazine of being unreliable. It is unacceptable to try to whitewash controversies. Honestly, the old version of the article was much more neutral in its last iteration. Sourced criticism from reliable sources should not be removed wily-nily. And the passage of time does not make a non-neutral article neutral. Perhaps someone can come and fix it? Ngchen 03:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  again, this NPOV dispute tag has been up for over a year - the article was completely re-written since the NPOV tag was added a year ago - so it's not the passage of time, it's the complete re-writing of it that makes it no longer an NPOV dispute - which is why the tag was removed - and again, if you don't think it is from a NPOV, then *edit* the article rather than putting the NPOV tag back on ... and maybe you need to do more research? if you do not know who Chuck Schumer is, then you probably do not know much about american politics ... FYI: Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile are both liberal Democrats - they are not supporters of Bush - Schumer is a Democrat senator from NY (just this week he said "Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture and cling to straws when the situation on the ground and common sense suggest just the opposite.") ... so he is not a neo-con ... and Donna Brazille worked on the Jesse Jackson and Al Gore campaigns - she is not neo-con. Both are not only members, they are on the board of advisors. Why would 2 liberal democrats be on the Board of Advisors of a neo-con group? Maybe you should do more of your own original research before you make your next edits. Maybe you should call the organization or find someone who has interacted with them before and get some actual real research before you edit this article next time. Once you do this research, maybe you will understand my question of "how can you call an organization with Chuck Schumer and Donna Brazile on its board neocon?" ... once you do that research you will understand that your comment is not an NPOV comment. and antiwar.org is a not a neutral source. By their name, they are anti-war ... so their opinion is not from a NPOV. So citing them does not make this more neutral. And no one is trying to whitewash anything. But it is not fair to keep slapping an NPOV dispute tag on an article but not be willing to edit it to make it NPOV. so again, if you think the article can be improved, then improve it ... but stop vandalizing it with endless NPOV disputes. that is not fair to wiki-readers. So I have removed the NPOV dispute tag again. please do not add it again. if you think something is not NOPV, then *EDIT* it for God's sake. your laziness should not disturb wiki-readers - and what you are doing is not fair :/ Larryfooter 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  one more tidbit for you from the wikipedia page on Chuck Schumer: "A Democrat, in 2005, he became chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In November 2006, he was elected to the new post of Vice Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. In this position, he is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin." Why would the third most powerful Democrat be on the Board of a neo-con group? Do you think his Democrat friends would allow him to be associated with neocons (who are all Republicans) and continue to elect him to top Democrat leadership positions? Your argument just makes no sense. Just like the NPOV dispute tag makes no sense. Larryfooter 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  and as mentioned above in the NPOV dispute section of this page, your actions raise the Wikipedia Red Flag - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources - and you do not have exceptional sources - I suggest you read the Wikipedia Red Flag page to learn more about this before you make your next edits. Larryfooter 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  ngchen - you should also learn more about the guidelines you cite - The first sentence of WP:OR reads: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that these two individuals are on the Board of FDD is a published fact. The fact that they are both liberal democrats is published fact. Therefore, if they are both liberal democrats and on the board of FDD, then FDD can not be labelled as neocon in any intellectually honest debate. If it were neocon, then liberal democrats (the exact opposite of neocons) would not be affiliated with the organization. So citing those two members does not fail WP:OR. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  one other point: antiwar.org is not "Sourced criticism from reliable sources" ... it is an oganization with an agenda and has been proven to be unreliable dozens of times. Larryfooter 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  one final point: your comment "perhaps someone can come and fix it" is disingenuous at best. you started the NPOV dispute over one year ago. and as being one of the only people in all of the world to object to this article, *you* have done *nothing* to edit it other than add biased unsourced criticisms. why don't *you* fix it if you do not think it is neutral? you seem to be the only one, so why don't *you* do something about it other than taking the easy way out and just adding the NPOV tag over and over and over again?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfooter (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have filed a request for comment (RfC). Now, I would like to offer a rebuttal. I believe the rewrite, while done in good faith, is nevertheless not neutral. Someone can rewrite something multiple times in good faith, and still not produce a neutral article. Now about Charles Schumer and Donna Brazile, I am familiar with the fact that they are Democrats, Schumer's anti-gun politics, etc. etc. But saying that because they are relatively liberal democrats (verifiable), and that they are on the board (verifiable), and that the organization therefore cannot be neoconservative (not verifiable) fails the subset of WP:OR,  more specifically WP:SYN. Nobody is claiming that Democrats cannot be hawkish and so forth (see Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman for examples). A common criticism of neoconservatism is that it allegedly is not really conservative at all, and that it derives from the far-left. As for "calling them" and such, that really is OR. Remember, the goal is verifiablity, not truth. The sourced criticism I added specifically notes that people making the criticism. As you correctly noted, antiwar.com is against war. Are you saying that statements like "the liberal group X has argued that position Y is wrong because of blah blah" should be excluded? If so, why? Notice that the phrase liberal group specifically notes that it is a liberal group. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether they want to consider criticism from liberal groups. Nevertheless, if the group is well-known, then such a statement should stay. For fixing POV disputes, well I'm not necessarily the best writer for presenting stuff neutrally. I know that for the 32 Demands article that I worked on, what happened was that there was a very biased version first, I added some criticism, and a third author later kindly fixed it. It is now neutral to everyone's satisfaction. I am hoping the same will happen here. Removing sourced criticism (from the Christian Science Monitor no less) is unacceptable.Ngchen 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ngchen: see my comment below about your criticism section - it fails WP:RS - read more below under your copyvio / sourcing discussion section Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Larryfooter, the FDD website is not a reliable source for this page. see WP:SELFPUB  Dlabtot 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  dlabtot: the web site was not a source for this page - the web site was referenced above to make a point that the organization is not neo-con - it's bipartisan - the web site was mentioned on this discussion page only to show that it listed many prominent democrats on its board - which would be impossible for a neo-con organization to do - also, WP:SELFPUB says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" but then lists some exceptions - if you feel any of those exceptions have occured, please post the specifics of your concerns. thanks! Larryfooter 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out a number of fallacies in the above remarks. First of all, the fact that Schumer and Brazile are associated with the FDD does not in any way make the organization "not neocon." Both Schumer and Brazile are also associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, which is essentially the forum for the "neocon Democrats." Brazile worked for Al Gore, who was consistently as militaristic as any of his Republican counterparts. Therefore, the Brazile/Schumer argument is not only OR, it is false. The argument by Larryfooter that the organization is bipartisan, and therefore not neocon, holds no water whatsoever. Moreover, the characterizations of FDD as "neocon" were all properly sourced and must be restored, and I will do that now. Larryfooter's claims against antiwar.com should be documented before material from that source is deleted. The fact that it "has an agenda" may be noted if properly sourced. However, it is not a "liberal" site -- one of the noted commentators there is Paul Craig Roberts, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.--Marvin Diode 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  anyone who thinks Schumer and Brazile are neoncon doesn't deserve the right to edit any political article on wikipedia because they obviously know nothing about american politics. There is sooooo much evidence to the contrary that it's not even debateable. And regarding anti-war.com - they have no editorial oversight - they have no reputation for fact-checking - and the claims made by them are exceptional (and rememeber, WP:RS says: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people") - so the criticism is poorly cited, does not meet the WP:RS guidelines, and therefore does not deserve to stay on this page. Larryfooter 16:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely New Page

message: A dispute exists over the neutrality of this article. This user believes the article is biased in favor of this organization by not including criticism. Another user disagrees, and argues that the criticism is  unreliable. Further questons exist over the requirement or lack thereof of a duty of one raising a POV dispute to fix it oneself with the passage of time, as opposed to having third-party editors do it.
::I took a look at the article's edit history, and it does appear that the article has been "cleansed" of legitimately sourced criticism. The language in the article is also somewhat biased, using formulations that echo the organization's own propaganda. --Marvin Diode 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - Neutrality/Criticism 

message: I am going to close the RFC unless someone objects. Eiler7 18:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, but it looks like the horse is already out of the barn. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC closure 

message: Where are the images for FDD that used to be here? There was a picture of Walid and the FDD logo. 
Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Furthermore, there seem to be no citations on the initiatives and elsewhere. If this doesnt appear it is apparently self-research and against wikipedia. there ought to be citations.
but what about FDD's fund raising? theres not word on this. any connection to heritage of the others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 01:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like most of the article is drawn from FDD's own website, which is permissable under WP:SELFPUB as long as it is factual and not too self-promotional. I see that you have added the "citations missing" tag, which I think is probably unnecessary. You could spend a few minutes adding footnotes to the FDD website if you think they are needed. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: why is michael ledeen notable enough to be named to this section? There are whole host of who ought to be mentioned too. Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense is that if they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they are notable enough for that section. I think I may have written that section originally, and that was the criterion that I used. Perhaps there are others now that should be added. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fair enough, but use consistency. Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at their list of advisors, it seems to have grown considerably. For now I have listed the upper echelons, using their ranking system. I'll add more later. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  founding members/leaders 

message: Please note that  is regisered to Foundation for Defense of Democracies and has repeatedly edited this article . Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COI]] editing 

message: Obviously not neutral! And the "Investigative reporting" section, to name just one, has remained with sweeping allegations without any citations for over two years now. --Stfg (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: GOCEreviewed

message: The praise section of this page is consistently deleted and the criticism section is consistently increased. For this page to be considered neutral both sections should be allowed to exist so the reader can make their own opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty20036 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be good to include a section on praise.  However, the one you keep trying to add is just a string of very long quotations, all but one of which are of unknown provenance.  Do you think you could rework it into something similar in format to the criticism section—that is, with shorter quotations which concisely capture the intent of the commentator, and which are supported by specific references to the reliable source in which the quotation appeared? —Psychonaut (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could provide sources for those quotations would that be acceptable? Also, where does wikipedia stipulate that a quote has to be within a certain length or format? Liberty20036 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you need to provide reliable sources for those quotations, but that alone isn't sufficient for them to be kept.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles (or even sections of encyclopedia articles) aren't mere collections of quotations.  Consider trimming them down so that only the most relevant material is quoted, eliminating quotations which say the same thing as another quotation (or alternatively, summarizing in your own words a set of quotations which say much the same thing, and then providing references to the originals), and adding some explanations and/or links which show why the quotation or the speaker/writer is notable.  If you are looking for a place just for collecting and reproducing verbatim quotations, please consider creating a page at Wikipedia's sister project, Wikiquote. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The copyright issue has been resolved, stop undoing the clean-up.Liberty20036 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright issue is resolved only when an administrator or copyright clerk says it is.  Until then, do not edit the infringing section and do not remove the copyright violation template.  If you want to volunteer to write a non-infringing version of the article, then please follow the instructions on the template. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for contributing a rewritten version of the article at Talk:Foundation for Defense of Democracies/Temp.  A copyright clerk or administrator will review it and, provided there are no further copyright problems with it, merge it back into the main article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How long does that usually take?Liberty20036 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It varies, depending on the availability and workload of the administrators and copyright clerks.  If you'd like you can browse the past cases at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and see how long recent ones have taken to be processed. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting absurd. This page says nothing about the subject its about and any attempt to edit it is undone and the editors banned. Its just for criticism. Wikipedia is joke. Alas, the uninformed and stone throwers rule the day. Liberty20036 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.  If you keep this up, you're headed for a permanent block.  Have a nice day. Qworty (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been civil except you keep engaging in WP:Vandalism. If you read WP:Primary, you can use Primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." And citing a Congressman who is not part of the subject is a reliable source. You should be permanently blocked for consistent WP:Vandalism of this page. Liberty20036 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a routine content dispute.  Dealing with editors you disagree with by calling them names--"vandals," "stone throwers," "uninformed," etc.--is a violation of WP:CIVIL.  I will repeat it again, and will say so on your talk page:  You are in violation of WP:CIVIL.  I have no doubt that you are headed for another block. Qworty (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: The WP:SPA with the WP:OWN issue keeps trying to insert a neutrality tag, against consensus.  His entire beef with this article appears to be that it labels the FDD as a conservative organization.  Since when is it an insult to call conservatives "conservative"?  The sourcing is certainly there for this group to be labeled conservative.  Since the editor in question is the sole voice arguing the odd POV that calling a conservative a "conservative" is some sort of insult, I think it's time that he reconsider and stop his crusade against this article--which is, btw, the only article he's ever been interested in.  That is very strange in itself. Qworty (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: From what I've been able to understand of the position of the WP:SPA, the reason he's been jumping up and down for all of these days and using up all of this bandwidth is because he doesn't like the "Criticism" section of the article.  So I've simply gone ahead and removed the single word, "Criticism."  Now the organization's right-wing views are presented solely as what they are--well-sourced right-wing views, without any indication that this is a "criticism."  I hope this settles the matter.  I really don't see why so much energy must be expended on an article because of the existence of a single word.  Sheesh. Qworty (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the word "Criticism" 

message: Just a note to explain my reasoning, I removed the external pdf links because they were not resources about the subject of the article, and given the promotional tone here and potential for CoIs, I am wary of the use of ELs as linkspam. External links to the organization's website, like the one that appears in the sidebar, should be sufficient. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_  03:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of external links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 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/20121105015114/http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies to http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies
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) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: i would think this would be an oxymoron "Political leanings are nonpartisan or neoconservative" . Even if it was "Liberal non partisan". The whole system is partisan now.
:It has been described as nonpartisan and neoconservative - not necessarily by the same people.  But even then, those two descriptors aren't contradictions; neoconservatism describes an ideological outlook, while nonpartisan means it doesn't support a political party.  A nonpartisan neoconservative organization might eg. support Democrats who they believe will back intervention to promote democracy, which is a key part of the ideology.  Also, I restored the descriptor of neoconservative, which seems well-sourced and reasonably uncontroversial (even the organization's name summarizes its neoconservative beliefs!) It seems like it was removed based on an objection from a not-very-reliable source, but we have to give the Telegraph and the CS Monitor more weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political leanings nonpartisan or neoconservative