Talk:Freedom's Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Quote by Tenet in Early 2007

"On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration "could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with Al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."["

How is this relevant to this organization? The quote is in the criticism section, yet its not critical of the organization. The quote was mode in April, yet this orgnization wasn't formed until August.

I don't see it as relevant, and the argument to include seems to be classic WP:OR. Efforts to "validate the words falls" under WP:SYN Dman727 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting the rationale for the inclusion of this statement. The paragraph's premise is based on the fact that any implied link between Iraq and 9/11 is a false claim, and this final statement is necessary to provide the context, validation and citations required to be able to state this fact. Without this reference the whole paragraph becomes meaningless as the fact that forms the basis for the criticism would be unsourced. Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The statements made by George Tenet, which form the basis for the criticism in the paragraph, are very well referenced. WP:SYN is based on the new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, however, only one source is required here to provide the necessary information (that no Iraq-9/11 link has been found), and there is no synthesis of multiple sources to demonstrate this fact (for which a reference is required according to WP:CITE).
Humanist Wikitopian 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, its completely relevant.Giovanni33 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I too agree that the Tenet quote is relevant. But I don't think this paragraph (as is) quite gets it right. The paragraph should provide (neutral and verifiable) information that FW has been criticized. (That's what the heading says.) Instead, it seems to imply that the group is wrong. The structure of this paragraph is approximately this: 1) the group's ads have been accused of implying something that's false, and here's an in-line citation of ABC News to support this; 2) synopses of two of the ads (i.e., demonstrating the false linkage); and 3) Tenet's quote that there was no proof of a link. The strength of this paragraph is in the ABC News quote, because it supports the claim that there has been criticism, rather than the Tenet quote, which is there to show the group is wrong. By ending with the Tenet quote, the paragraph seems to invite the reader to perform his or her own "synthesis." What if we try this logic: 1) the group's ads imply a link, use synopses of the ads to support this (don't use the words "false" or "falsely"); then 2) several investigations have shown that such a link did not exist, use the 9/11 Commission and Tenet's quote to support this; and then 3) the group has been criticized for this, use the ABC News citation to support this. And here's another citation I found today (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/08/24/fleischer_war/ ) that may add more support to the criticism itself, rather than the wrongness. Hult041956 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to incorporate your suggestions into the article. I think it reads more neutrally and, frankly, better now. Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Ursa. I confess I made the above suggestions (and felt they were good) but didn't know exactly how to get started. You've done a nice job, I believe. What about the following addition (which I'll vet here first)?:
Observers have criticized the group's ads for their "manipulative style" (ref to:)Conason, Joe, "Ari Fleischer's misleading message", Salon.com, 08-24-2007. Retrieved 09-18-2007. (end ref) and for linking the war with the 9/11 attacks "despite no reliable evidence Iraq played any role in those attacks." (ref to:)ABC News, op cit (end ref).
Does this help or hurt. Clearly this group (and this article) will continue to be controversial. I don't want to re-introduce the NPOV or SYN issues we've been working to solve. Hult041956 17:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I replaced the more tangentially related Tenet quote with a more directly related New York Times quote that compares the group's advertising with a lack of evidence for Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Is this a better fit? I also clipped out the names of people in the ads and their backstories, since it didn't seem particularly important to the criticism, and seemed to get in the way of a clearer statement of what the criticism was. 67.170.166.3 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... today, it's gone entirely. Here we go again? Hult041956 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why So Many Red-Links?

The article has a dozen or so wiki-links to nothing. Is someone going to invest the time to write articles on each of these subjects or should we remove the wiki-links and just bold the names or something? Ursasapien (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's even worse than you said. A couple of the blue links only accidently go to an existing article---about the wrong person. Check out high school kid, Matthew Brooks, and Olympic kayaker, Richard Fox, who are likely associated with neither the Republican Jewish Coalition nor Freedom's Watch. Looks like the author of this list just bracketed every name without even checking. And on the flip side, Florida election recount might well be an interesting link, but wasn't made. Hult041956 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom's Watch 'About' reference

The link in the references section no longer points to their about page. It still says the same stuff but now it's located here:

http://www.freedomswatch.org/About/tabid/38/Default.aspx

Sorry, I couldn't work out how to change it myself. Richardbeavis 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Richard. Since the obsolete url appears in an in-line footnote, you need to fix it there. (That is, within the paragraph the footnote appears in, rather than in the Reference section. I took care of it... go there and see how to do it. Hult041956 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jewish stuff?

Sorry, but I don't see how some of the links are relevant in the least. "Members are almost all Jewish" sounds pretty...shall we say, NPOV, in this context--as if it's being implied that there's something wrong with there being a bunch of people who practice Judaism. How are the members' religious preferences relevant at all to Freedom's Watch? I see nothing in their work that has anything to do with Judaism.

I'm removing two "external" links. One in particular links to another Wiki article (not external) that has precisely zero to do with this subject at all. --Beth C. 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Make that three links. I also removed the link to an anti-Fleischer blog post from Think Progress, which isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Beth C. 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article is an article about the group from a reliable source. If they think it's relevant to point out the Jewish connection, it's up to them. —Ashley Y 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
But how is it relevant to the story of what Freedom's Watch is about? I'm sure there are plenty of groups who have something to say about Freedom's Watch, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with their mission. They aren't an Israel advocacy group, after all. I'm just saying, who cares if a bunch of them are Jewish, just because the JTA does? Yes, the JTA is a reliable source, but I guess I just don't see how that means whatever they say should necessarily matter. (BTW, the links were actually separated, which made it kinda strange in the context; it wasn't formatted as you have it, which makes it make sense, although I still don't think it's relevant.)
I'm not going to go back remove it again now (edit wars suck), but I would like to understand the point in having it in there. It's not that it's inflammatory--I just don't really think it's noteworthy. --Beth C. 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Political Positions

Apparently Freedom's Watch is a conservative group, or so it seems. Out of curiosity, does anyone know Freedom's Watch's political positions on the issues such as abortion,crime,traditional marriage,stem cell research and etc? I think this will further enhance this article.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they do not take (as an organization) positions on any issues outside of the "War on Terror." They are very pro-Bush administration, but I do not know that you can use the blanket description "conservative." Ursasapien (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I myself put "conservative" in his aricle is because Bush himself is a (neo) conservative. In fact most groups who support bush are (mostly) conservative groups, while those who oppose Bush and his policies are (mostly) Liberal groups. I put conservative there because I once visited Freedom's Watch's site and judging by what I saw, I do presume that Freedom's Watch is a conservative group as the group supports many to most of Presidnt Bush's policies, such as th Iraq war and etc.


Spokenwordsegment (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Moreover I got some proof here

http://www.freedomswatch.org/


Spokenwordsegment (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've got me there. When you look here, they say "Freedom’s Watch was formed to promote the common good and general welfare of the American people by supporting mainstream conservative public policies." They do not, as far as I can see, publically express a specific position on "abortion, crime, traditional marriage, stem cell research, . . ." but I imagine they would take typical conservative positions. They may seek to avoid the abortion question as it is devisive even among conservatives and is completely off their original mission of supporting the war. Ursasapien (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)