This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9069.html htom ( talk) 13:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Updated general information, however, I have kept the classifications that were requested to be changed, as changing them might be considered biased. |
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]
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] [3]
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. [4] [5]
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. [6] [7]
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. [8]
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.” [9]
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation, and has represented the causes of parties with varied political viewpoints, including conservative [10] and religious [11] student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA, [12] and Professor Ward Churchill. [13]
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation. It has represented conservative [14], liberal [15], and religious [16] student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA [17] and Professor Ward Churchill. [18]
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] [19] 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. [20] [21]
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] [22]
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". [23] [24]
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. [25]
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." [26]
Jfarmz ( talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
@ 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)
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)
a non-profit group founded in 1999 that focuses on protecting free speech rights on college campuses in the United Statesis 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)
I don't see any discussion of the history of FIRE, including its name change. Bhami ( talk) 18:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9069.html htom ( talk) 13:45, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Updated general information, however, I have kept the classifications that were requested to be changed, as changing them might be considered biased. |
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]
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] [3]
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. [4] [5]
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. [6] [7]
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. [8]
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.” [9]
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation, and has represented the causes of parties with varied political viewpoints, including conservative [10] and religious [11] student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA, [12] and Professor Ward Churchill. [13]
Updated Reference in Intro: FIRE has no stated political affiliation. It has represented conservative [14], liberal [15], and religious [16] student groups. FIRE has also advocated on behalf of PETA [17] and Professor Ward Churchill. [18]
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] [19] 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. [20] [21]
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] [22]
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". [23] [24]
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. [25]
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." [26]
Jfarmz ( talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
@ 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)
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)
a non-profit group founded in 1999 that focuses on protecting free speech rights on college campuses in the United Statesis 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)
I don't see any discussion of the history of FIRE, including its name change. Bhami ( talk) 18:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)