Talk:FreedomWorks

Rework, rewrite

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)

• That's fine, just make sure that the instances of "non-partisan" is removed from in front of all the mentions of MediaMatters.24.40.162.197 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!!

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)

Source watch is a liberal based wiki (http://en.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)

Somebody might have gone overboard in taking out the "pro-ness", with negative, inaccurate buzzwords. I changed one sentence about Koch.68.180.38.25 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Insurance issue

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:

“ Citizens for a Sound Economy -- now called FreedomWorks and headed by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) -- has netted more than $638,000 and about 16,000 members through the sale of insurance policies. ”

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)

Merger of CSE and FreedomWorks articles?

merging FreedomWorks and Citizens for a Sound Economy would make sense 74.8.97.18 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Capitalizing the first letter in your sentence would make more sense, though. 64.221.15.66 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure that is appropriate since Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two organizations, the other being Americans for Prosperity. Morphh ^(talk) 13:47, 05 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative, libertarian or both?

The articles lists and categorizes Freedom Works as a conservative organization. Considering its focus, could it also be considered libertarian? Granted, the two overlap, but the focus seems to be more on economic issues and reduction of government than more traditional conserative issues. --Amcalabrese (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you can find some attribution, I say go for it.64.221.15.66 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• They self-identify as "conservative", their proponents and critics both identify them as "conservative", and their leadership is comprised of widely-known Republican political operatives. To look at some of their views and declare them to be 'Libertarian' is WP:SYNTH. I would also argue that in addition to this, it is also a mischaracterization, due to the fact that they disagree with the Libertarian Party on (nearly?) all issues that conservatives and libertarians disagree on (i.e., abortion, immigration, legal prohibition of drug use, etc...). Read about the libertarian platform here and compare to Freedomworks' stance on these issues. — Mike :  tlk  15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find some explicit examples where "Freedom Works" is actually anti-freedom; i.e., some freedoms that they do not recognize or think "work", and to state them in the article. I suspect that their definition of freedom begins and ends with the economic issues. 173.16.125.178 (talk)

Unless you consider being against gun control, bans on public smoking, etc. to be "economic issues," your suspicion would be incorrect.TL36 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

FreedomWorks don't have a stance on social issues any more, to my knowledge. A lot of their team self-identifies as libertarian - including President Matt Kibbe, Policy Analyst Julie Borowski (aka "TokenLibertarianGirl", associated with Young Americans for Liberty), Vice President of Development David Kirby (a Cato Institute policy analyst), Director of Production Austin Petersen (an atheist libertarian, previously affiliated with Freedom Watch), Legislative Counsel and Vice President Dean Clancy and Board Director Richard J. Stephenson. Andrew Napolitano is a frequent speaker at their FreePAC events. Perhaps in 2009 FreedomWorks was not very libertarian, but now libertarian conservative seems like an appropriate label.--81.159.36.3 (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• They're conservative. One of their predecessor organizations, Citizens for a Sound Economy, could be characterized as libertarian, but no libertarian ties (Koch family, Ron Paul etc) exist to the current organization FreedomWorks. Part of CSE after a split merged with Empower America, a clearly neoconservative group founded by William Bennett, to form FreedomWorks. On a related point, this article's claims that "FreedomWorks seeks to identify itself with two schools of thought: the Austrian School of economics and public choice theory. Through public choice theory, FreedomWorks legitimizes its mission and models itself after the Austrian School.[citation needed] " are uncited, and more to the point, a search on '"Austrian school" site:freedomworks.org' brings up only a few hits all of which appear to be insignificant and say nothing about FreedomWorks' official views. I would say any attempt to tie FreedomWorks to the Austrian School, Ron Paul, the Koch family, or the libertarian label is little more than an attempt to smear all of the latter by dubious association with the former and should be removed. 71.176.139.195 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Based on the agreement here I think that putting quotes around conservative leads readers to believe that it is in question. I'm going to remove the quotes Not An IP (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Libertarian & Conservative do not overlap. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Political_compass for clarification. --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was the article Empower America deleted?

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)

No OR please

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)

A very British Tea Party: US anti-tax activists advise UK counterparts: London conference sees American rightwing movement share

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)

Contradiction

The article reads:

FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. ... Citizens for a Sound Economy (grassroots machine) merged with Empower America (policy expertise) in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks,

Those statements, although both apparently sourced, clearly contradict each other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What is a grassroots machine? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm just quoting the article. That does suggest which of the contradictory statements should be removed, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At Citizens for a Sound Economy it says

• In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two new organizations, with Citizens for a Sound Economy being renamed as FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation becoming Americans for Prosperity.

Freedomworks is apparently a combination of the old Citizens for a Sound Economy and Empower America. What's the contradiction?   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "grassroots machine", that's a term used in a FreedomWorks press release by Jack Kemp: "FreedomWorks is a bold new approach and yet with this merger, it is built on over 30 years of combined organizational experience. By merging the policy expertise of Empower America with CSE’s grassroots machine, FreedomWorks provides the freedom movement with an organization that has unprecedented scale, reach, experience, and impact."[1] That may also address the issue of CSE merging with Empower America to form FreedomWorks.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Grassroots machine infers Astroturfing? 99.181.151.5 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase has been removed from the article, so I don't think that extended discussion is helpful. However "grassroots machine" is a term used by proponents of a cause to express the strength of their get-out-the-vote operations, etc. It is not a derogatory term and does not seem to be used to infer astroturfing.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Executive salaries

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)

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)

Dick Armey's Resignation

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)

Confusing edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The three organizations

In the infobox, three legal statuses are provided. One website is provided. That is wrong, and very misleading. No organization can have more than one FEC filing status at the same time. This status determines what each organization can and can't do, and this shouldn't be muddled in the Wikipedia article. Sometimes Wikipedia combines all related organizations in one article, especially in one is a very minor subgroup such as an Education arm. I think that's how League of Women Voters is handled. Sometimes each organization has its own article. Either method works, but we need to be clear on which does what. If this is going to remain one article, then each org must be clearly connected with its own official site and legal status. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"especially in one is a very minor subgroup" Then let's not promote these minor subgroups any more than anywhere else in Wikipedia - We don't give official links for every product, subsidiary, etc.

The relevant policies/guidelines are WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL, especially WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.

This has already been discussed at some length on my talk page here. Until we have consensus to keep them, they should be kept out per WP:ELBURDEN. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate Ronz is either unable or unwilling to engage in good faith and actually read what I wrote, and instead blames me for what he himself is doing. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Climate change denial

While I've avoided participating in the discussions on when and how to properly include "climate change denial" in articles about people and organizations, assuming the disputes will go to ArbCom at some point, this definitely seems like a organization that deserves the label. The Mother Jones ref is fine alone, but maybe with other references we could justify a stronger statement. --Ronz (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The opinion piece from Mother Jones in 2009 is not notable in this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that response means, or how it justifies the deletion and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It means that "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Capitalismojo (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"According to a December, 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine, FreedomWorks was one of the twelve most significant organizations in promulgating climate disinformation."

Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015.

Thank you for your comments. Like you, I avoid participating in the discussions on when and how to properly include "climate change denial" in articles, but I don't think this is necessarily that dispute and doesn't have to be. May I point out that the disputed content is a reasonable paraphrase of a source and does not include the phrase "climate change denial." We agree the article is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources, in that the article mentions "climate change" just once, "global warming" not at all. We agree the Mother Jones reference is fine. Can I ask for support in this addition as we seek other references? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose HughD has been adding this reference to a number of articles and thus far 4 different editors have issues with the way HughD has chosen to include it. I would object to the inclusion based on the clear editorial opinion nature of the article. The source is also of questionable notability and reliability with respect to this topic. HughD has not shown that the opinion writer's view is notable with respect to the general topic of this wiki article. Springee (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on article content and related policies and guidelines rather than personalities here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. The source is not an editorial, it is a feature article. The proposed content includes in-text attribution and is wholly conformant with policies and guidelines including WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The source is noteworthy for its commitment to coverage of environmental issues. If you believe the subject of this article is not noteworthy, you may nominate it for deletion. Hugh (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is a straight news article and in fact it can not be. Who has objectively determined this ranking of "disinformationists"? Just Mother Jones not an independent org or researcher. What is the objective standards that were used? None. Rankings published by magazines are ordinarily simple opinion pieces, throw away articles, filler. Those rankings that aspire to be more publish them annually, set objective standards, publish the standards, etc. and even then they acknowledge that the ranking is their opinion (e.g. U.S. News & World Report College Rankings). This piece is a one-off (2009), brief, poorly written, never repeated and one that that gained no broader currency in other news reporting. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is an opinion article that uses a sensational headline to get reader's attention. The way you are using it is not to say "the organization in question has funds groups that disagree with climate change" (or similar). You are trying to tell the Wiki readers that it is notable that Mother Jones (or the MJ editor in question) feels these are the worst 12 organizations. It is NOT notable that MJ felt the need to single these companies out. If MJ provides some facts about what they did then that may be notable. That MJ expressed an opinion is not. Because the article is expressing an opinion it becomes an opinion article and must be handled as such. Springee (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So it's a minority viewpoint so insignificant that it deserves no mention at all, per WP:UNDUE? What would be necesssary to demonstrate otherwise? --Ronz (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for intervening in the discussion, but I think the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." ... "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."... "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."... "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."... "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." ... "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met ... It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." So the relevant questions for the sources establishing FreedomWorks' role in misinforming the public would be: 1)Can the source stand up to scrutiny? Has it passed some level of control for fact-checking? 2) Are the claims made by the source relevant to the article and reasonably reliable? 3) Can we identify the writer of the source and have some basic facts on the significance of his/her viewpoint? 4) Is the bias of the source reasonably acceptable? 5) Are the contentious claims of the source supported by further sources? 6) If the source is making claims against an organization and is questionable itself, is it really worthy of being included or even mentioned? Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetically, given that MJ is politically opposed to FreedomWorks, and that FW has made some comments against the "mainstream" view of climate change, we would expect MJ to put them in a "dirty dozen" list. That seems to make the claim of little significance, even if otherwise from a reliable source. If there were any "liberal" organizations in the list, that might be significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What would be necessary to demonstrate that reference should be used? --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the MJ insertion (and this would apply to the other articles where HughD inserted near verbatim passages) the insertions would have to be considered MJ editorials based on presented facts. Using the list set out by Dimadick: 1. The supporting facts presented by MJ likely will stand up to review. So if MJ says FWs ran an ad campaign claiming X then I think we can expect that campaign did exist. However, MJ's is saying that these are the 12 worst organizations in terms of climate denial. Well how can we verify that these really are the 12 worst? So, no, the claim from MJ that was added to the Wiki article can not be reasonably reviewed. 2. The claim that an organization is "one of the worst" is relevant if the source of the claim is strong. Do we think MJ's set up a reliable method to judge "the worst"? Are they really a reasonable group to compile the list and make the claim? I would say no. 3. We can identify the writer but it does not appear that said author has notable expertise in the field thus his view would not be seen as that of an expert. 4. I suspect MJ is more likely to make an error of omission than of stated fact. I would generally expect their statements of fact to be reasonable. 5. So far it appears that other sources do not reference the MJ claims. 6. I think MJ is just reputable enough that #6 is not grounds for exclusion. Springee (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In an era of crashing revenues in professional journalism and vanishing resources Mother Jones (magazine) has for years maintained a staff dedicated to investigative journalism on the beat of the financing of politics and in particular politically active non-profits, some are determined to blacklist them. They are a highly significant highly noteworthy point of view and we are obligated to summarize it, to look the other way on this RS is non-neutral. The content is not in Wikipedia voice, it is clearly attributed in-text, and perfectly verifiable and in complete conformance with WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:VER. Hugh (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been critical of editors who question your motives. Please avoid sounding hypocritical by questioning the motives of others. You feel that the MJ article you wish to include is "highly" significant and "highly" noteworthy. Perhaps you can support your opinion using the 5 points outlined above. "We" have no obligation to summarize their opinion nor do Wiki guidelines demand that we share the editorial opinions of MJ. Springee (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

Springee, thanks for addressing my question. What policies and guidelines is that from? Note that I'm asking for basic NPOV inclusion, that it is a significant viewpoint. How do we demonstrate that it is due inclusion? --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The 5 questions I addressed were ones that Dimadick posted above presumably based on his reading of WP:RS. I think there are several ways that this insertion (or the rejection there of) could be addressed. In my view the issue is that HughD was trying to insert an editorial opinion as if it were a reported fact. Thus the insertion no longer lives up to the WP:RS standards so WP:UNDUE isn't a factor. I haven't spent much time thinking about the question of UNDUE with respect to this edit but I will offer some speculation. I think we could ask if the insertion is UNDUE based on the notability to others that a group was placed on MJ's "12 worst" list. Remember that HughD's insertion didn't explain why MJ put them on the list, only that they were on a MJ's list. Well is being on that list significant? Is that list significant? Sometimes being on a list does mater. If we are talking about a movie then an Oscar nomination or award is certainly notable because many people/sources will talk about Oscar winners. The ranking of a school on the US News College Rankings is significant because, right or wrong, many pay attention to that list. Thus it is significant to say a film was an Oscar winner or a University was ranked X by US News. If no one other than MJ actually references the MJ's list of the 12 worst then it isn't a notable list and thus inclusion on that list is not notable. I think it is always UNDUE to mention inclusion on an non-notable list. The reasons why MJ's decided to mention the organizations may be notable and MJ's is probably a RS for those facts. Inclusion on MJ's list is not notable since few seem to care about the list. This is above and beyond the fact that the list itself is editorial opinion. Does that answer your question (sorry, I didn't look up exact quotes from the polices)? Springee (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"editorial" The source for the proposed content has a byline and is very clearly a feature article, not an editorial, and it is attributed in-text to address concerns of possible bias as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As you know from WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Hugh (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"not notable" The source is noteworthy and a significant point of view WP:YESPOV. If you believe the subject of this article is not notable, you may nominate it for deletion. Hugh (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"HughD's insertion" Please WP:FOC and endeavour to depersonalize your discussion of content and policy. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Five/six questions that must be answered before hearing WP:NPOV seems like a WP:WALLOFTEXT argument to me. This is very straight forward. Policy is clear. Inclusion is required. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

" WP:UNDUE isn't a factor" My understanding is that when it comes to content, NPOV is always a factor. Either the material is due or not. If it is not due as sourced, then my understanding is that:

1. the proposed content might be able to be modified so that it is due, or
2. the sourcing might be improved so that it is due. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "feature article". It is either an editorial (opinion of MJ) or a column (opinion of the author). In either case, labeling an idialogical opponent as an enemy of truth, justice, and the American way "the truth about climate change" is not unexpected. The list might be appropriate in the article about MJ, but it is not relevant to the targets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is a staff reporter for Mother Jones (magazine). Hugh (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC) The source includes "special reports" in its URL and was indexed under "Top stories." Hugh (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• In an effort to try to balance the voices for and against, I have edited the MJ reference in question. I have tried to remove anything that may be seen as a loaded WP:LABEL while retaining the base content of the citation. Springee (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee Please restore your deletion of the quote from inside the citation to facilitate our colleagues evaluating the accuracy, completeness, and neutrality of the paraphrase. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

springee You deleted the words "among the most vocal" from a recent neutral, well-referenced contribution from a colleague, with an edit summary of "Reverting to version without loaded terms." May I respectfully ask, what are the loaded terms you refer to, and what is your basis in policy or guideline for this edit? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Springee I see again you have reverted a well-referenced, neutral contribution from a colleague without discussion. Again with an edit summary "Removed loaded language from quote, users can see that by clicking on link, changed text language to more neutral language. Move to talk before changing again." The edit summary asks for talk page discussion, but here the talk page immediately above includes direct questions that have not been answered. No "loaded language" was specified. I see no "loaded language." No policy or guideline is cited. You have also removed a brief relevant excerpt from the source added to the citation in a good faith attempt to facilitate the development of community consensus on the neutrality, fairness, accuracy, and completeness of the paraphrase of this source in our article. As you know, our policy requiring a neutral, fair paraphrase when summarizing our sources, is relative to the source, it is not an injunction to be "fair" or "neutral" with respect to the subject of the article. Hugh (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, there isn't even consensus to include your link at all. Ronz and I discussed a way to address both the concerns of those who see the list as significant because all of two RS mention it in passing yet handle the clearly non-encyclopedic language used by the obviously biased author. What we came up with follows the lead of The Atlantic. We mention that MJ listed the company/organization but we avoid all loaded language. In cases where other RSs are saying the same thing (as was the case with The Heartland Inst) it's highly questionable that this list is significant at all. If you disagree why not start an RfC and get more input. We can use that as a baseline for the insertion in all the related articles. It's far better than dealing with your extravagant claims of importance and WP:BLUDGEONing etc. Springee (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement at article talk. I understand you do not like Mother Jones (magazine) and Josh Harkinson, you need not repeat that, thank you. The Atlantic is not a source for this content. What is the "non-encyclopedic language" in the content you removed? What is the "loaded language" in the content you removed? What is your basis in policy or guideline for your deletion? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you build consensus for your inclusion. Currently you do not have it. Springee (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask again, please be specific about the "loaded language" in the content you removed that you mentioned in your edit summaries and here on this article talk page? Hugh (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The title of the reliable source is "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial."
• The lede of the source says "Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine."
• The Heartland page of the source says "Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you."

Springee How do you figure "a significant climate change denier" is a non-neutral summarization of this source? The source is not a list of all known climate change deniers in the world who have ever significantly denied climate change. Everything in Wikipedia is significant. If it were not significant we would not be mentioning it. On Wikipedia, saying "X is a significant Y" is exactly the same a saying "X is a Y". But our source is not saying that the subject of this article is merely "a climate change denier," it is saying that the subject of this article is a distinguished climate change denier, distinguished by its outspokenness. It would be non-neutral for us to summarize this reliable source by softening the claim in the direction of a favorable treatment of the subject of this article. Of all the deniers of climate change in the world, our reliable source is very clearly saying that the subject of this article is among the most vocal climate change deniers. This type of distinction is the very nut of notability and noteworthiness. No policy or guideline including WP:LABEL in any way authorizes exclusion of this content from our encyclopedia. It's almost as if having reluctantly recognized this source is going to be included in our project, you have resigned yourself to making sure our summarization of the source communicates as little as possible unfavorable content from the source to our readers. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ronz and I discussed" The appropriate place to discuss article content is on that article's talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Publicity Violations

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)

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)

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

Kibbe has apparently moved on. Who is the current President?

Kibbe

Kibbe has apparently moved on. Who is the current President?

According to the staff page [2], 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)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages,[3] including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw no conclusion in the NPOVN discussion. I'll try removing the cite and see what happens. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Last I looked, the reference is included in most if not all of the articles that correspond to the entries from the Mother Jones list.

The Atlantic's recommendation of the source is enough to make it WP:DUE as a significant opinionviewpoint. How about we work on the presentation? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that as: one editor objects to removal. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be a notable opinion. As far as I know, I am the only editor who attempted to add it as an opinion, rather than as a fact. If Ronz can suggest wording making it clear that it is the author's opinion, I would consider it acceptable, although the notability of the opinion still seems questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant "significant viewpoint" as explained in WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"one editor objects" Please WP:FOC and note the wide consensus which I referred. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus to note, but two editors seem to think it belongs so I'm not re-removing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be a "notable viewpoint" (although I have doubts that "among the most vocal" could be notable, and the organization's index in the list is at all notable), but it is an opinion, and must be clearly marked as such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on FreedomWorks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FreedomWorks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Views

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)

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)

Kibbe and Armey, Politico and National Review

@Karapally: 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)

SPAs and IP# scrubbing article

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)

Cleta Mitchell

I reverted the recent expansion [4] 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)

Requested edit

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 @MJrJohnson: 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)

Hi @Heartmusic678:. 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)

@MJrJohnson: 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)

2 new sections added after Legislation supported

FreedomWorks Foundation 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.  Done up to this point with minor edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Freedomworks For America 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).  Done with minor edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reason for this particular change: I believe actions pertaining to both FW's foundation and Super PAC are relevant to the organization's history and the article needs updating accordingly.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to engaging further. MJrJohnson (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Second request

Hi again. I am Michael from FreedomWorks. Moving forwards with our copy edit of the article, I will now present the second request for consideration, 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. In this particular case I will continue with the Legislation section, it being mostly additions of new information. The requests are fully sourced and presented in full markup for your convenience.

Before the FreedomWorks supported the Electricity Security and Affordability Act paragraph, incorporate the following:

Legislation

During the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, FreedomWorks succeeded in extracting a concession from House Speaker John Boehner to get his debt ceiling bill through the House. Together with other tea party activists, FreedomWorks lobbied to "add a provision making a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution a prerequisite for raising the debt ceiling." The group has also thrown its support for the Right to Try Act (H.R. 878), introduced in 2017, a bill that would "allow terminally ill patients unrestricted access to experimental drug treatments."

After the unaltered aforementioned paragraph, continue as follows:

FreedomWorks supported the repeal of ObamaCare in its entirety, holding several campaigns with this intent, and meeting with President Trump to lobby for this repeal. In 2017 FreedomWorks lobbied in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Affix the next paragraph with new starting and closing sentences:

FreedomWorks has lobbied for criminal justice reform, most notably through its support of the First Step Act. It supports the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015, REDEEM Act, and Email Privacy Act. FreedomWorks opposes net neutrality regulations and submitted formal comments to the FCC "urging them to stay the course on their Restoring Internet Freedom Order".

Done up to this point. I updated the first sentence of the new first paragraph as follows based on the source: "During the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, FreedomWorks, along with other advocacy groups, succeeded..." Also, I added the source that the quote "urging them to stay the course..." was taken from. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Continue with the 5 new paragraphs that follow:

The organization supported House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Representative Zoe Lofgren's introduction of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act in April 2021. The bill "requires the government to get a court order to compel data brokers to disclose data", stopping "law enforcement and intelligence agencies buying data on people in the U.S. and about Americans abroad, if the data was obtained from a user's account or device, or via deception, hacking, violations of a contract, privacy policy, or terms of service." It also "takes away the Attorney General's authority to grant civil immunity to providers and other third parties for assistance with surveillance not required or permitted by statute", among other provisions.

FreedomWorks supported Republican Congressman Mike Garcia of California's introduction of the Inflation Prevention Act in February 2022. The bill would "bar legislation, based on an analysis of each bill from the Congressional Budget Office, found to increase inflation until the year-over-year inflation rate drops below 4.5 percent." Congressman Bill Huizenga, and Senators Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, and John Thune also showed their support. The bill was sent to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, with no companion measure in the House.

It also lobbied against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (H.R. 842), claiming it was "one of the most anti-worker and anti-business bills that we have ever seen brought to the House floor", given it would target "workers who choose not to join unions". According to the National Review, FreedomWorks was among twenty groups that "helped lead" the "Save America" Coalition, effectively "killing" President Biden's Build Back Better bill. According to the publication, among other efforts the groups collaborated to run "millions of dollars worth of advertising" to "pound the airwaves" in West Virginia and Arizona, where Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (Democrats who expressed their displeasure with some aspects of the bill) are from.

FreedomWorks also notably supports the filibuster as a parliamentary tool, particularly as it pertains to Republican tools to counter Democratic initiatives such as the For the People Act or proposed controls on prescription drug prices. Along similar lines, the organization opposes President Biden's proposal of subsidizing American chip production, stating the latter "should be funded by private enterprise and not the American taxpayer."

In 2021 FreedomWorks helped lobby a bipartisan group of senators to "halt efforts to increase new funding for the Internal Revenue Service".

References

• Reason for this particular change: Firstly, the title change (removal of "supported") is appropriate given the section relates to legislation both supported and lobbied against, so removing "supported" seems logical. All other changes pertain to relevant (as covered in sourcing) additions of such support or lobbying. The modifications overall provide a clearer picture of FW's involvement in politics.

@Heartmusic678: I am pinging you due to your implementation last time around. I more than understand if your schedule is busy. In any case, thank you again for your help so far and thoughtful review. Regards, MJrJohnson (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJrJohnson: This is done with minor edits, most of which are rephrasings to reduce the amount of direct quotes without losing the integrity of the content:

Paragraph 1: During the United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2011, FreedomWorks, along with other advocacy groups, succeeded...

Paragraph 7: FreedomWorks was among twenty groups that lead the "Save America" Coalition, effectively killing President Biden's Build Back Better bill...among other efforts, the groups collaborated to manage million-dollar advertisement campaigns in West Virginia...

Paragraph 8: FreedomWorks also notably supports the filibuster as a parliamentary tool, particularly as it pertains to Republican efforts to counter Democratic initiatives ...Similarly,...

Paragraph 9: In 2021, FreedomWorks helped lobby a bipartisan group of senators to cease efforts toward increased Internal Revenue Service funding.

Let me know what you think. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Any substantial expansion that is not supported by an independent source should not have been included and should be removed per NOT and POV. The use of their publications as references should be minimized. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal Can you explain your concerns in detail? I am considering undoing the edits due to dubious neutrality. Quetstar (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted them all, as I've been considering to do the same.

First, the requests and edits are written in a manner that it's difficult to tell what changes are being requested/made based upon what sources.

There's heavy reliance on their own press and presentation.

From what I can tell from the references combined with the confusing requests and edits, there are POV and NOTNEWS problems with the given weight and presentation.

I encourage much shorter, clearer edit requests (and edits), with the references clearly identified, so editors can easily review the situation. --Hipal (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Good job. Quetstar (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Circling back

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:

New section added after Legislation supported

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)

Hi, per the policy on inline citations, the quote "support the Save Our Country initiative" needs a citation to a reliable source. HouseBlaster^talk 03:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: 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)

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)

I have  Done 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. HouseBlaster^talk 00:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Hipal: 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. HouseBlaster^talk 02:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Then we need a new proposal that doesn't violate NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster and Hipal: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)