Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

case coverage

I think the best thing we can do to improve this article at this point is to give a more comprehensive version of the cases taken. Ideally we would list them chronologically (I think this is the most neutral way to go), and select only the "biggest" ones so as not to overwhelm the reader. A good way to start would be to go not to FIRE's website, but to look for which cases have been covered by the media -- this should be a good guide to what the "big" cases are. Sdedeo (tips) 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the following gem :

Most recently, [FIRE] took issue with the University of Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training document, which teaches that the term racist "applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality". (University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation (FIRE Press Release, October 30, 2007); Victory at University of Delaware (FIRE Press Release, November 2, 2007)) "This gem of wisdom suggests that by virtue of birth alone, not conduct," wrote Walter E. Williams about this "racist nonsense" which was eventually dropped, "if you're white, you're a racist." (Academic Cesspools by Walter E. Williams, October 17, 2007; Academic Cesspools II by Walter E. Williams, November 7, 2007) Asteriks 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is generally very poor. It seems obvious that it has been a running battle between those who wish to abuse Wikipedia to bash the organization and editors like Sdedeo who have been doing their best to keep the Wikipedia spirit of objectivity alive. I went through and corrected some obvious mistakes of fact and grammar, and added a bunch of fact tags where citations are needed for controversial statements of fact that simply have no outside support listed. Unless the people who added these claims come forward to support them in the next couple of days, I am going to follow Jimmy Wales's advice and delete the unsourced claims. People rely on Wikipedia for information; I fail to see the point of posting articles that contain obvious attempts at hatchet jobs on the subject of the article. This article is not even that helpful and I am planning on rewriting it to be much more helpful in the next few days unless someone can give me a reason not to. First on the agenda will be adding a more comprehensive list of cases taken (and some outside citations to them) - the cases cited appear to largely be the oldest ones and then the ones that are the most recently controversial. Crc32 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

POV issues

It's fairly clear that the article is becoming a subtle battleground between supporters and opponents of FIRE's activity. All editors should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If the content you are adding is intended to alter the "spin" of this article, please reconsider your edit. Material here must be of neutral point of view, neither advocating nor opposing any particular viewpoint, nor attempting to garner or repel support for a particular viewpoint.

In particular, there are numerous instances of parenthetical remarks in the article meant to offer immediate counterpoint to statements made in the article. This is poor style, first of all, and conveys that someone - in particular, the editor(s) adding such parenthetical remarks - have an axe to grind. It would improve the article substantially if "oppositional" content were moved into a separate section that discussed criticisms of FIRE's activity in a self-contained fashion.

On a side note, I would remind editors that uncited synthesis of material into a conclusion, even when the material being synthesized is cited, constitutes original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dachannien -- can you be explicit about which bits you find objectionable? That will help us move quickly to fix the problems. Another thing you might do is be bold and kill the parenthetical remarks (if they are unsourced, which I believe is the problem?) Sdedeo (tips) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing the article in a personal sandbox for now. I'll paste the whole shebang in place once I'm done with it, although this may not be for a few days. Thanks. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that is the wrong way to go. Instead, let me urge you to instead edit things "in place", bit by bit. This is almost always far easier to get consensus on, because people can agree and disagree with things as they go. If you want to make a major structural change, let us know what it is here.

Again, really, I urge you not to copy and paste in a new text; having competing versions makes things really hard to get agreement on. Sdedeo (tips) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I looked at the article yesterday, it's come under the scrutiny of a variety of editors, so I think you're right in this case that my sandboxed edits would cause more problems than they'd solve. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of these citations from educational thinktanks are questionable. I do not believe that SourceWatch is a NPOV source, unless its own relations to far-left interest groups is made mention as a caveat. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then, it can hardly be considered to be a Reliable Source (WP:RS), caveats or none. I'm seeing several citations in there that are clearly not appropriate. The NYT is reliable. CMD is not, except for the narrow purposes of identifying that a criticism has been leveled. The "conservative" nature of FIRE may or may not exist, but it won't be established with this source (and, reading the evidence in the CMD article, it is clearly an opinion piece rather than something citeable). I'm not changing anything for a day or two so that contributors can upgrade their citations; otherwise they need to be deleted.

On another note, could someone clean up the citations? A big chunk of them are hyperlinks that don't use the REF tag so they aren't footnoted at the bottom. Wellspring (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE I went ahead and fixed the refs. Fully half the article at the moment tries to trace the "are they conservative or not" question. If we can find one reliable source that says they're conservative, then we can reduce the whole thing to one sentences: "FIRE is a non-profit, non-partisan organization associated with the conservative political movement." If we can't, then we should say "FIRE is a non-profit, non-partisan organization." and then have a Criticisms section that reports, "Some interest groups have accused FIRE of being aligned with the conservative political movement. FIRE responds that (BLAH BLAH BLAH)." With citations for both. The current article is replete with dead links, unreliable sources and long chains of supposition that blur into WP:OR. I'm happy to note that they're conservative if that can be established, but the article needs cleanup. Wellspring (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, one of the sources proves that FIRE is associated with the ACLU by sharing cases with them, and has defended socialists and liberals and is led by a pro-choice liberal. So I take offense at the idea that a single source can prove FIRE is associated with the right wing. Hitler is associated with virtue in at least one idiot's mind. To characterize this organization as right wing, you'd have to overcome the evidence that it is left wing. I don't think that's possible. 128.62.148.193 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the cited article "Riordan, Molly. "Academic Freedom Takes a Step to the Right" Center for Media and Democracy, 2005. Accessed 22 March 2008." and IMO it's a weak opinion piece that simply asserts FIRE is a "conservative" organization by lumping it with other "conservative" organizations in a one liner. No evidence is offered. The writer is an undergrad in college with an obvious political axe to grind. I don't see how this counts as a reliable source for the wikipedia. Pmw2cc (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The value of that citation, I think, lies in FIRE's response. The article was apparently important enough to FIRE that it had a program officer write a rather lengthy response. If anything, the exchange illustrates FIRE's concern with its public perception, even in what you describe as an unreliable source written by someone with an "axe to grind." Jsmill1806 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the Riordan citation has been removed. The citation has been in the article for quite a long time (I recently cleaned up the reference, hence the 22 March date). Might we restore the discussion of the exchange to a new "criticisms and responses" section as suggested below? Jsmill1806 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is valuable, I'd say. Every organization is concerned with its reputation. The page you cite doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. The response might-- but I think if you want to use it the way it sounds like you do, it would require Original Research. FIRE have been involved in several controversies, surely there's SOME reputable source that covers the question without us having to compromise our policies. 131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The length of the response does indicate, IMO, that FIRE has some interest in it's reputation, which is understandable, but it doesn't indicate anything about the quality of the original article. This is the internet, people write long responses to meaningless stuff all the time. Also, quite possibly, large parts of the response is boiler-plate material that they've provided to many people in the past. Or the program officer is just wordy. I certainly support the idea of moving all the criticism to a separate section, however I still don't see how the article in question is useful. The article isn't about FIRE (there's only a 1-line mention of FIRE), it's about a subject that FIRE has stated it's neutral on and I don't know of any evidence to disprove that. Pmw2cc (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is not that it is unusual for FIRE to be concerned about its reputation, but rather that it would devote the resources of its president and officers to directly respond to public criticisms from what other editors here deem non-noteworthy sources. As for the "boilerplate" possibility, each response seems to be unique and specifically addresses the original criticisms: [1], [2], [3].

Also, I notice that my references have been removed, but I do think the destination of former officers/directors is relevant to understanding whether FIRE is (perhaps informally) involved in an ideological network. Without attempting to draw any conclusions, I and other editors simply noted that prominent former officers/directors went on to lead or found organizations (ACTA, MPI, ADF, HRF) associated with the conservative non-profit network. I did find additional former (?) officers listed on the FIRE site but could not determine the nature of organizations or companies to which they moved on -- conservative, liberal, non-political, or otherwise. Jsmill1806 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but that's essentially original research by synthesis. However, if a reliable source were to note the destinations of former officers and publish conclusions regarding FIRE's ideology as a result, that would be different. But I just don't see that in the sources that were listed, which had little or nothing to do with FIRE itself. Isn't that type of information more relevant to the articles on the individuals themselves? Nesodak (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, but some of the officers/directors/etc. mentioned are not necessarily as noteworthy in their capacity as individuals as much as they are as (former) FIRE agents. Nevertheless, I respect the consensus and I will remain on the lookout for a reliable source article about this information. Jsmill1806 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this merits inclusion in the article, but I did notice that FIRE is listed in the directory[4] of the State Policy Network, whose goal is "improving the practical effectiveness of independent, non-profit, market-oriented, state-focused think tanks." The conclusion is up to the reader to draw, of course, but I do not see why a FIRE, which on the surface has nothing to do with free market advocacy, would be listed unless it is also ideologically compatible with the SPN's goals. Jsmill1806 (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the KKK lists you on their website, it doesn't mean you're a racist. I know analogies generally suck, but I think this analogy has at least some merit in instructing us not to draw conclusions about an individual or organization based upon the endorsement of third parties. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There's no context in the link you provide. First, I don't see that SPN is even notable....and FIRE is listed under "other organizations", whatever that means. Does SPN list FIRE because FIRE advocates free markets, or for some other reason? Does endorsement by SPN mean that FIRE shares any of the values of SPN, or vice versa? Nesodak (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FIRE accuses Wikipedia of mudslinging

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9069.html htom (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

<$0.02>After a quick perusal of the article and this page I think the article's claims of bias on this page may be a bit overwrought (full disclosure, I'm somewhat sympathetic to FIRE's stated goals). I agree that the POV may be a touch slanted against FIRE, but I don't see concerted edit-warring at this point, certainly nothing approaching what is seen on other articles with political overtones. I urge both sides to engage with each other in the spirit of good faith and resolve issues according to WP policies such as reliable sourcing and WP:BLP. Reasonable efforts by reasonable people should be able to reach consensus.</$0.02> Ronnotel (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've thought this page has been pretty bad in the past, actually. I've noticed enormous focus, almost a witchhunt, to show that FIRE is right wing. You can look through the history or even this short discussion to see that I'm right. Wikipedia can't be perfect, but lets stay on the right track. The article in its current form is great, but I wonder how long it will stay that way. 128.62.148.193 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Instapundit has linked to FIRE's article which should bring this page greater scrutiny. This is generally a good thing since Wikipedia's pages on politically controversial subjects often tend to become left-leaning in the absence of mass involvement and scrutiny. At the present moment, this page seems to be in reasonably decent shape. However, the section "FIRE's political orientation" seems to be an OR attempt to define FIRE by who supports and praises it, rather than by what FIRE's political orientation actually is. I have added this page to my watchlist and will lend my help to try to keep it balanced. kevinp2 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above...barring any objections, I think the above section should simply be removed. For example, both conservatives and liberals can praise or support Martin Luther King Jr. - this doesn't mean that he automatically would be classified as part of one or the other faction. Nesodak (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted in accordance with WP:SYN. Nesodak (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of that material is salvageable, though I agree it shouldn't be used in a guilt by association context. But I don't think the article per se can't have some indication that FIRE has received compliments from right-leaning or religious organizations. It may well have been credited by left wing or liberal organizations also. Can we work on keeping some of that stuff? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask - are the party affiliation(s) or supposed left/right tendencies of individual named people associated with this organization really relevant in this article? If so, why? Nesodak (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - if FIRE is praised universally by right-leaning institutions or people, it suggests that the organization itself shares their values, or that the values FIRE stands for, such as freedom of speech and religion, are themselves valued by the right. Either way, I don't think it is a violation of NPOV to note the organization is related to conservative organizations (and nothing to be ashamed of, imo). Kaisershatner (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That also seems like a bit of synthesis to me. One could also arrive at the conclusion that, in the course of defending all speech, FIRE has simply run across more cases of conservative speech being squelched than of liberal or centrist speech being squelched. That is to say, the bias doesn't rest with FIRE, but rather with the academic administrative community. True or untrue? Who knows. But the article should be careful not to couch either possibility as being the truth unless it can somehow present reliable sources (and not mere opinion pieces) that strongly support one of them. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely concur...if someone finds a good reference from a reliable source stating that FIRE was, for example, a fascist organization, I'd help format it for the article. But, as Wikipedia authors, we shouldn't be making these determinations, only quoting them. Nesodak (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly -- actually, per WP:RS, only -- because both FIRE, and critics of FIRE, have made a big deal about them. Critics of FIRE have pointed out the close ties and board members associated with American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Alliance Defense Fund and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. FIRE itself has countered by noting Greg's political stance, those of the founders, and statements about the ethnic, religious and political diversity of its staff. Sdedeo (tips) 19:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the article makes numerous references to activities of associated individuals outside their role as members of FIRE. If someone worked with FIRE and subsequently left to do something else, or makes public statements as a private citizen and not as a FIRE representative, why would that be included in the FIRE article as opposed to simply in the article on that individual? Once again, this seems to be synthesis - an attempt to divine a political ideology for FIRE by citing various sources which do not even discuss this organization. Nesodak (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The associations with ACTA, ADF and DHFC have been noted by WP:RS places such as the Chronicle of Higher Education; you may think CHF is being unfair, but can only cite responses by another outside WP:RS or an official response from FIRE. In other words, WP:SYN applies only to editors, not sources. Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a consistent trend that FIRE leaders move on to work in conservative organizations, it does suggest that FIRE's work is ideologically compatible in some ways with those other groups. This does not mean that FIRE's work is not also compatible with leftish groups. I am sensitive to the concern of guilt by association, but I don't exactly understand the objection - from what I am reading here, FIRE does get money from conservative groups (and others) and also shares some personnel with them (and others), while at the same time defending liberals and having a self-described liberal CEO. What's wrong with that description? (I'm asking, not asserting). Kaisershatner (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point...I'm asking why the activities/associations of these particular individuals are relevant to the FIRE article at all. Why is it necessary to note that a board member describes themselves as a Democrat or a classical liberal or whatever? Or why is it necessary to note the subsequent activities of former leaders? What do those things have to do with FIRE itself? Nesodak (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As an example, what does this ref say about FIRE? It may say something about Silverglate, but has nothing to do with FIRE. It seems to me that FIRE says "we are non-political", and the authors of this article are attempting to prove the opposite by synthesizing things like the above article in an attempt to prove FIRE wrong. It would be one thing if we quoted and cited a New York Times article that classified FIRE as right-wing; it's quite another to "build a case" on this page by assembling scraps of unconnected information to attempt to prove a right-wing tendency through innuendo. Nesodak (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I get it now. Your point: why characterize FIRE at all from a political viewpoint? I would have to think about it, but maybe the answer is that in articles such as this there is often a "criticism" section (see: Amnesty International maybe for example). Seems to me that the article should reflect criticism/opposition to FIRE, and much of that appears to be focused on its supposed ideology. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC) And the ref you include here doesn't reflect anything about FIRE, I agree. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I don't think there would be anything particularly wrong with an outright statement that FIRE is right-wing, or left-wing, or libertartian, or apolitical - so long as we were directly quoting the opinion of a reliable source, and not stating or implying our own opinion based on an "investigation" of the available literature. Nesodak (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A criticism section with a one-liner about their accused political orientation (if well sourced) and their response would be an excellent addition to the article. Currently half the article is devoted to back-and-forth on this, and should be deleted. 131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"If there is a consistent trend that FIRE leaders move on to work in conservative organizations, it does suggest that FIRE's work is ideologically compatible..." I want to note that this statement seems very pernicious to me. It's not Wikipedia's job to 'suggest' things. That is original research, plain and simple (or worse). --Dcfleck (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

note from User:Sdedeo

I'm the person the FIRE blog has accused of being an "internet-obsessive", having an axe to grind, and so forth. I've done a lot of work on the article, but I think it's pretty clear (if you do want to go back in the histories) that whatever opinions I express elsewhere, I've done my best to hold to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and all the other good things in the work here.

You can read some talk page material here if you're not convinced by my bona fides. I should add, by the way, that I've taken down my original remarks on FIRE I made at OpenLeft, which I felt in retrospect were overly harsh and rhetorical; you can see the post here. Speaking personally, I don't particularly want to be "famous on Instapundit".

As I said in a private e-mail to Greg, FIRE's director and author of the blog post, everyone is welcome to edit the page, including FIRE employees; on an article such as this, most editors are going to have their own opinions. If everyone hews to the spirit and letter of the various policies, things will grind along well. Sdedeo (tips) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:COI, FIRE employees are discouraged from editing the content of the article although they are welcome to engage in discussions on the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI -- unlike WP:NPOV &c. -- is a guideline and suggestion, not a law. I've seen plenty of cases where people affiliated with a group in question have worked constructively on that article, and my own feeling is that WP:AGF trumphs things. I've encouraged it in the past, and I encourage it here. Sdedeo (tips) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Restructuring the Article

OK the bottom line is the article sucks at the moment. I hope I'm not offending the people who have put hard work into it, it's just that it has accreted too much back-and-forth to be readable. This has long since past the point of WP:DUE.

I'd like to propose that we resolve this political affiliation thing once and for all. Kaisershatner and other suggested a criticisms section: I think that's a great idea, consistent with articles on interest groups on the Left, Right and center. If someone finds a WP:RS that documents that they are conservative or some variation thereof, let's use that source, quote their language, and leave it at that.

Except for the two sentences and the footnote that we use for this, the rest of the article should be about FIRE's mission, structure and activities. A great many citations are from blogs, opinion articles, FIRE's own website, and the Columbia student paper. The latter two might have some applicability, but the rest should go, and any otherwise unsourced statements with them. There's plenty on FIRE out there from reputable sources.

It seems like everyone is working to improve the article, so this is more a "rally the troops" than a "shame on you" rant. :)

131.96.173.10 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely - a separate section for criticisms would be a great help, making the article much clearer (instead of a muddled accretion of factoids people have tossed in for purposes of refuting or supporting certain viewpoints) and allowing editors to more easily ascertain whether the article has POV issues or not. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

When I was working on the citation templates, I noticed this article is really reliant on self-published sources, particularly by FIRE itself. I think this is fine for things like the membership of their boards and their claimed mission statement, but in discussions of their activities, or anything possibly contentious, we need to replace them with third-party sources or possibly preface statements with something like "According to FIRE, ...". Thoughts? Nesodak (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This one's actually pretty easy. Most of the cases FIRE has handled have a "case" page, and they usually link to independent sourcing of each case there. The downside is that they usually don't provide a direct link to a third-party web resource, but rather a locally-hosted PDF (ugh) of the article they are citing. We should probably be careful that we don't pick up any opinion pieces this way, but at least some of the articles they cite are actually neutral discussions of an issue where FIRE was consulted as a commentary source by the reporter. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nesodak and Dachannien on this. Also, we want to make sure that FIRE isn't cherry picking their reliable sources. 131.96.91.156 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Selection of cases and issues

Ugh, I'm not sure how this article's selection of cases and issues advocated by FIRE was arrived at. Looking over them, most (not all) seem to set up FIRE in opposition to traditional left-wing groups, like minorities, feminists, the ACLU, etc. I'm not getting this in looking over the claims on their website, where they show support for various people and causes across the ideologicial spectrum. I'm not sure if the apparent slant in this article is intentional or a reflection of coverage in the press. I'll see what I can do to dig up reliable press reporting on FIRE activities - cases that didn't receive notable coverage should probably be trimmed from the article. Would definitely appreciate any help. Nesodak (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A good place to start would be to look for references to FIRE in "national" or major newspapers such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, etc. I did find this on Columbia, but it looks to be a different issue unrelated to anything discussed in the article: [5] Jsmill1806 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nesodak. The list of cases needs improvement. I follow FIRE closely and these are not FIRE's most high-profile cases. Added a graf on UNH and a graf on Brandeis. The section on FIRE and The David Project had to go. FIRE's stance on that issue was quite nuanced. It was fairly critical of the David Project at times (see: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5330.html). In any event, it's not a major FIRE case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77redherring77 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK this sounds petty, but it also needs some better formatting. Right now it reads like a wall of text, whatever else is done to improve it. Wellspring (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen worse "walls of text" in articles before, but you're still right - the article could use some reorganization, even if we were to decide that the content itself is perfect. I guess my suggestion would be, instead of having a section called "cases", have separate sections for each type of case that FIRE responds to, and include a couple of notable examples in each (preferably ones that have gotten a lot of third-party media coverage, enabling us to flesh out each of those sections more). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that some of the cases are only referenced to FIRE press releases—perhaps these should be removed, if we have not verified any attention to these matters outside of the organization. Or at least reduced to a more summary form regarding what FIRE claims to have accomplished. Postdlf (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead links?

Is it just me, or are many of the FIRE web site links dead? I tried reference 34 and reference 27 without success. Reference 29 worked, on the other hand.

Could someone please take the time to fix these references? Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. The FIRE links apparently break if the URL contains a "PHPSESSID" parameter. Remove that and they work properly. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Critics

To take one hot button left/right issue, FIRE does a reasonably good job of supporting free speech on the Israel-Paestine conflict. They've defended professors accused of anti-Semitism, as well as the right of people to put up anti-Muslim posters in the subway.

A lot of their supporters seem to be conservatives, of the sort I'd see on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a lot of their cases seem to be conservative issues, like the rights of Christian campus organizations, and opposition to "civility" codes. But they're at least free-speech conservatives who are consistent about defending free speech for everyone.

If we do have WP:RSs like the Chronicle of Higher Education that note their conservative affiliations, that should be notable enough to include. They weren't created in a political vacuum. Readers should be able to look at the facts and come to their own conclusions about that. --Nbauman (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Christ, how many times does FIRE itself have to deal with this issue before we stop seeing stuff about FIRE being conservative? Their issues are conservative issues? I was unaware that defending freedom of association and speech was solely a "conservative issue". That they happen to defend conservative groups on occasion is not evidence they are "conservative". Greg Lukianoff, the president of FIRE, has made it quite clear he is no conservative. Why are so many people so hell-bent on seeing FIRE labeled a conservative group? Such a quest speaks more about the political leanings of those so fixated on this issue than it does the political leanings of FIRE. But given the laughable characterization of the "Israeli/Palestinian issue" by the above commenter, it doesn't take a genius to figure out his political affiliation.74.138.45.132 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How many times does FIRE itself have to deal with this issue? Are you saying that an announcement by FIRE that they are not conservative should be the ultimate determiner? I also doesn't see what the above commenters own political opinions have to do with anything. I'm sure he does have political opinions, as do I, and do you, and does FIRE (and I fail to see what is so 'laughable' about his/her opinion of the "Israel/Palestinian" issue, or even what that leaning is). -124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people can figure out that if an organization is actually conservative it would have no problem admitting as much, so, yes, FIRE's declaration is meaningful. It is certainly more meaningful than ludicrous assertions that defending religious liberty and free speech in regards to "civility codes" and speech codes(which haved been deemed Unconstitutional EVERY TIME the issue has been adjudicated at the federal court level)is somehow unimpeachable evidence that FIRE is conservative. That so many commenters here claim otherwise is an indictment of the censorious Left in this country. And as many commentators have pointed out, it is not hard to understand why FIRE is mislabeled, given the fact that the campus censors FIRE regularly combats fall almost exclusively on the left of the political spectrum. I also must add that I find it hilarious that commenters point to the supposed political leaning of FIRE's board as their primary "evidence"(which in this case is a euphemism for bullshit)for the claims that FIRE is conservative, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Greg Lukianof is to the left of Sean Penn.74.134.145.218 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody know

how these folks stand on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution issues, particularly about people's right to carry firearms on campuses? This is an "education" and "rights" issue that is discussed quite a lot in some circles. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding, FIRE doesn't take a stance on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Crc32 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Requests - Out of Date Information

Hi, I would like to suggest some edits to FIRE’s wikipedia page. Due to an affiliation with the organization, I am posting those edits here as suggestions in order to not violate Wikipedia’s ethics code. Below is a list of basic changes that should be made in order to update the information on FIRE’s organizational structure. Additionally, I have provided a list of citation updates in order to help correct the issue of “may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject”.

Text Edits:

1. Correction in Introduction (Out of date case count and bad reference)

Old Language: FIRE lists over 170 such instances on its website.[2]

New Language: FIRE lists over 400 such instances on its website.

1. Correction in Introduction (Out of date board information)

Old Language: Silverglate remains the chairman of FIRE's board,[4] while Kors is Chairman Emeritus.

New Language: In 2015, after almost a decade serving as chairman of FIRE’s Board of Directors, Silverglate passed the leadership position to longstanding FIRE board member Daniel Shuchman. Silverglate remains a member of FIRE’s board.

2. Correction in “Issues” (This section is formatted in a way that makes it seem that FIRE may fund student groups. This is not the case.)

Old Language: FIRE has also voiced support for freedom of association by funding and operation of "expressive" student organizations, including campus religious organizations that may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religious belief in membership (for example at Tufts University[16][17] and at the Milwaukee School of Engineering)[18] and fraternities that may engage in "off-color"[19] or "misogynistic"[20] speech.

New Language: FIRE has also voiced support for freedom of association for student groups.

3.Correction in “University Rating” (FIRE’s ratings do not solely rely on the speech code examples listed.)

Old Language: The foundation gathers together each university's various harassment and hate speech policies, as well as any "Advertised Commitments to Freedom of Speech".

New Language: The foundation gathers together each university's various speech codes, as well as any "Advertised Commitments to Freedom of Speech".

4.Correction in “Leadership” (FIRE has dissolved its Board of Advisors.)

Remove: As of 2008, FIRE's Board of Advisors included the following notable people:[27] T. Kenneth Cribb, former Reagan official. Nat Hentoff, author and columnist. Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Wendy Kaminer, lawyer, feminist, and social critic. Leonard Liggio, author, law professor, and board member of several libertarian think tanks. Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute. John Searle, Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley. Christina Hoff Sommers, author and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

5.Correction of “Campus Freedom Network” section heading. (the Campus Freedom Network is now called FIRE Student Network)

Old Heading: Campus Freedom Network

New Heading: FIRE Student Network

5.Correction in “Campus Freedom Network”. (the Campus Freedom Network is now called FIRE Student Network)

Old Language: FIRE now has a Campus Freedom Network.

New Language: FIRE maintains a FIRE Student Network.

5.Correction in “Campus Freedom Network”. (FSN membership number is much higher now, the reference listed has the FSN membership at the bottom of pg 29)

Old Language: It consists of 3,000 students dedicated to FIRE's mission and it seeks to establish a social network for supporters of free speech rights on college campuses.

New Language: It consists of over 10,000 members dedicated to FIRE's mission and it seeks to establish a social network for supporters of free speech rights on college campuses.

Reference List Updates. The sentences listed here are copied from the existing wiki text, the only new aspect is the updated references. For sentences that needed additional references (not replacements) I did not re-link the pre-existing references:

Updated Reference in Intro: “FIRE was founded by Alan Charles Kors, a libertarian professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil-liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Massachusetts.”

Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation, and has represented the causes of parties with varied political viewpoints, including conservative and religious student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA, and Professor Ward Churchill.

Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation. It has represented conservative, liberal, and religious student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA and Professor Ward Churchill.

Add an Additional Reference to the sentence: FIRE has taken stances on campus sexual misconduct policies; for example, it denounced the American Association of University Women's report on sexual harassment as "fatally flawed"[12] and sided with the defendants in joining[13] an amicus brief in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions et al.[14]

Update Reference in “Issues”: Another issue is opposition to campus "security fees" that some campuses impose on organizations hosting controversial or unpopular speakers on the theory that they should pay for extra security the colleges deem necessary due to the likelihood of demonstrations and disruption of the events.

Add an Additional Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The sequence of events is fully detailed in a FIRE press release, issued May 6, 2004.[28]

Updated Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The author noted that it "applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality".

Updated Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/”Public universities”: The chancellor finally apologized to the employee-student after mounting criticism from FIRE, the ACLU, and other free speech groups.

Update Reference to the Sentence Under “Cases”/Private universities”: In 2010, FIRE criticized DePaul University for denying recognition to a group advocating for decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States stating that student groups must "be congruent with our institutional goals regarding the health and well-being of our students."

Jfarmz (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have updated the general info, but did not change certain classifications that you have requested to be changed, judging that they should probably stay the way that they are. Regards, VB00 (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made several changes, including an address change, as several items have become further out of date. This includes some, but not all, of those proposed by Jfarmz above. In addition, I made a few updates not included above, that are now pertinant. Crc32 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Problematic revert

@Buidhe: Please explain this revert of yours. The conservative and category stubs need to go because i said in my edit summary the talk page and the article itself doesnt even say anything about the org's political ideology. Flaughtin (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin, I don't have an opinion on the categories. The page is on my watchlist and I noticed that someone changed "Executive Director" to "Executive Directorc", so I reverted it. buidhe 23:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't just revert that you reverted a whole bunch of other things as well. per this convo i will remove the template and stubs. In the future please be more careful when you revert. Flaughtin (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Reads like a FIRE brochure.

As I Google this organization it seem obvious that it is pretty right wing partisan, yet it is presented here as middle of the road. Moreover a lot of the references are paywalled, and I can't see what the actual article says. Jonnan (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, at the very least we can remove the mission statement cited solely to FIRE from the lead; it is clearly an inappropriate WP:ABOUTSELF cite given that it's obviously self-serving. But beyond that things get a bit trickier. I feel like citing the NYT ref solely to say in the lead that they are a a non-profit group founded in 1999 that focuses on protecting free speech rights on college campuses in the United States is misusing it, since it presents a much more nuanced view than that - eg. it also says FIRE’s mission has not changed, but interest from conservative groups has. Conservatives, Mr. Silverglate explained, are “seriously squeezed in the academic world” and finding their causes “suddenly coinciding with our agenda” and FIRE bristles at the right-wing tag often applied to them. They say they are a free-speech group, period - ie. they reject the label, but it is often applied, so we should probably mention somewhere. It also quotes one student by saying Katie McCleary, a Little Shell Chippewa student raised on the Crow Reservation in Montana, is a Yale junior who was active in the protests. “I would not seek out FIRE even though they say they are founded for reasons of defending students who feel their voice is lost,” she said. “It seems like a specific kind of lost voice that they are interested in. It’s usually a voice that’s racist and says things that are immoral. I’d rather speak for myself.” - just saying that they support free speech is hardly a complete summary of the article. More generally, though, go over the sources currently in the article, plus any other high-quality sources you can find, and put together a list of the stuff from them that the article seems to under-represent? --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't call the group "right wing partisan" at all, since numerous publications refer to it as "nonpartisan." That designation is used extensively by the mainstream media, including news outlets like Politico (that definitely aren't right-of-center). See these examples:

- https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/06/free-speech-group-first-amendment-00037320

- https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/fire-the-free-speech-group-taking-on-north-texas-colleges-14716669

- https://www.wired.co.uk/article/has-twitters-whistleblower-tanked-elon-musks-takeover

- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/11/study-finds-little-free-speech-colleges-freshman-o/ Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That is blatantly untrue. The Politico piece doesn't label them "nonpartisan", it quotes the president of the organization calling themselves that. The Dallas Observer is not particularly notable, but more importantly that article is a puff piece, citing almost exclusively the organization itself, its own clients, and right-wing sources like the National Review. And The Washington Times is a far-right publication with a long history of fabricated, misleading, and politically slanted articles. -- Fuchsia 'tude (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's objectively not right wing partisan. 2601:18F:A01:1990:10DC:7D8C:C59B:A20F (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As I Google this organization, it does not seem obvious in any way. The main one to pop up in the search to make the claim is far-left Sourcewatch, which has not been an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia for some time.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to emphasize the totality of what WP:INDY sources say, and less from sources and viewpoints close to the subject: "Emphasizing the views of disinterested sources is necessary to achieve a neutral point of view in an article. It also ensures articles can catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing or the contents of a sales brochure." Llll5032 (talk)