Jump to content

Talk:Vets For Freedom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias

This is the most blatantly biased entry I've seen on Wikipedia recently. WHAT, some OIF/OEF vets aren't entitled to have a political opinion? The implication here is that they're some kind of official arm of the GOP, and that's patently FALSE.

I am disgusted by this. These political activists on the left have turned Wikipedia into a worthless, laughable left-wing propaganda outlet.

HOW DARE the writer mischaracterize these veterans! I guess only antiwar vets get a fair treatment around here? Look at how the Jesse MacBeth hoax was called "biased" because it went against the prevailing groupthink--yet THIS trash isn't "biased?"

I'm also alerting Vets for Freedom so they can edit it as they see fit. Beth C. 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I will identify who I am ... I'm the lead citizen journalist on the Vets for Freedom article at SourceWatch. The VFF article grew from a simple posting on a new veterans organization into the extraordinary linkage to the definitely not non-partisan"ness" of the organization in all its various aspects.
There is no question or doubt about the organization's founders as being true veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom. Their patriotism and heroism is not in question.
That said, in true research, one goes where the information leads. In this case, it led down a very interesting path with the Republican Party and its operatives awaiting discovery at every twist and turn.
No attempt at bias was necessary; the facts speak for themselves.
Second, it's unfortunate that Beth C. failed to clearly identify who she is. Beth C. is the self-proclaimed "Blog Mistress" of the My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Blog, where, on June 19, 2006, she blogged the article "Vets for Freedom: Back to Iraq." Beth C. is also a co-blogger at The Cottilion Blog, where she has also posted on the VFF, helped to swiftboat John Murtha, and promote Murtha's PA opponent Diana L. Irey, who, by the way, is being promoted in her bid for Congress by the same group of "supporters" as the VFF: New Media Communications/Campaign Solutions/Donatelli Group.
Lastly, like Beth C., I await VFF's input both here and at SW. Artificial Intelligence 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "NPOV" template. Beth C. clearly has an agenda, which is acceptable IF she mentioned specific problems with the article. She did NOT. Instead, she used these words: biased ... implications ... disgusted ... worthless ... propaganda ... mischaracterize ... groupthink.
I do agree, by the way, with her removal of a link that is only quite marginally related to VFF.
I want to respond to the nearest thing to specifics that Beth C. mentioned: The implication here is that they're some kind of official arm of the GOP, and that's patently FALSE. The article says ONLY VFF has ties to the Republican Party and the George W. Bush administration, and it lists four specific examples of those ties. Beth C. does not dispute the factuality of those four items; if they are indeed true, then "ties" is quite a reasonable word to use, although I'm open to a substitute - perhaps "connections"? (Alternatively, if VFF has similar ties to the Democratic Party, then those should be listed, and the reader would then be able to see that the group is arguably non-partisan.)
Finally, the preferred wikipedia process is to fix things - the ability of anyone to edit means the ability of anyone to improve an article. It's less than useful to instead attack an article and its editors with generalities (see above). John Broughton 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have no problem identifying myself--obviously I have a point of view. OBVIOUSLY many--no, I should say most--of the other people editing Wikipedia do as well. I'd be shocked to learn that editors who attend to political issues on Wikipedia have no personal views of their own. That said, the article IS a slap at VFF. You simply cannot read that article and come away from it with a neutral opinion. I am not asking for a cheerleading section, I'm asking for NEUTRALITY. "Ties to the Republican Party and the George W. Bush administration" is ridiculous, as is "connections." They have no more "ties" or "connections" than the next person who supports Bush/the GOP and who may have donated or voted that way (such as myself). I happen to know one of the members personally. I would certainly *not* consider myself "tied to" or "connected with" either, although I could be characterized as a "supporter," as could Vets for Freedom. Why is that so hard to understand? May I assume that if you vote Democrat, you have "ties" to the DNC? Isn't that a bit of creative use of language? Anyone with sense would legitimately read it that way, and to deny it is quite frankly, intellectually dishonest, and infers that you think the reader is an idiot (or maybe you just think I am). I don't object to the factual items, but again, it does not indicate some kind of "ties" to the GOP. All the SourceWatch material does is establish the fact that the Vets for Freedom founders are right-wingers, or vote Republican. As if that's a crime? Since when?
John Broughton, I have interest in two articles that you have as well, and clearly you and I don't see eye to eye. I won't get into "reversion wars" and I have no interest in bickering, but it appears to me that you have just as much of an "agenda" as I do personally; the difference is I am trying to make these two articles less one-sided, while you object to everything I (as well as others like me) have said. This is why Wikipedia is not treated seriously--because (political) articles are more often than not written in such a way as to give the reader a certain impression (look at all the articles about people in the Bush administration, with the miles-long talk archives and vandalism!). It has not gone unnoticed, as I'm certain you well know at least as much as I do. Finally, SourceWatch may be AI's specific area of interest, and that's fine. I do not think the wiki article should be all about the findings of SourceWatch, though. If anything, the POV tag may have been incorrect and it should have been noted with "incomplete." That was a n00b error, and in the days since, while I've been buried in Wikipedia, I've picked up such things. However, there definitely is not any sense of "neutrality" in the article, despite what your own personal beliefs (which I will never challenge your right to have) may make you read out of it.
Finally, Artificial Intelligence, the fact that you have such a apparent aversion to my blog (as if I'm the only blogger on Wikipedia???) and your use of the term "Swiftboating" with regard to John Murtha is an amusing reflection of your own "agenda." I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to hide or defend the existence of my work to you or anyone else. You bring out links--as an indictment? That's just rich. I appreciate the linkage, though--thanks. ;-) I'm quite happy with it. I'm just a bit--baffled?--as to why someone like me is supposed to not participate in Wikipedia, while someone you would agree with can. That is, unless I missed the Wikipedia memo that says "for the left-leaning only." --Beth C. 04:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is almost everything in this article related to Source Watch/PR Watch? I am adding the NPOV tag again, because it is clearly not a neutral article. --Beth C. 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources? (Links)

How is a hit-piece from John Stauber's blog a "reliable source?"[1] --Beth C. 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Beth - you're not distinguishing between FACTS and OPINIONS. John Stauber clearly has an agenda. But when he is used as source, for example, for this statement: The VFF website was designed and is hosted by Campaign Solutions, part of the Donatelli Group, a firm that previously worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee, then it DOESN'T MATTER whether he has an agenda. Either that sentence is (a) true; or (b) false, which requires either (b1) showing he has a history of lying, mental illness, whatever, or (b2) [preferred] provide a citation for facts that contradict what was stated; or (c) the sentence is not the whole (relevant) truth (for example, the Campaign Solutions group has done work for Democratic organizations; the Donatelli group has a bunch of Democratic partners, etc.). Instead, what you seem to be doing is (d) saying that because Stauber has an agenda, any facts he presents should be discounted or removed. Unfortunately, if wikipedia had to rely on facts presented by unbiased sources, agreed to by all as unbiased, there pretty much wouldn't be a wikipedia.
I would really like to talk specifics, as you do in the next section. And I really appreciate the opportunity to talk here without getting into edit wars. John Broughton 13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My issue with SourceWatch is that the facts, such as their being hosted by Campaign Solutions, are used to support the overall claim that VFF is an arm of the GOP. I mean really, the VFF > Campaign Solutions > Donatelli > campaign/RNC "connection" is really a stretch. I really don't care what SourceWatch does at their site, everyone knows where they're coming from. But to use "facts" that are only there to support a theory/accusation at Wikipedia? With nothing written elsewhere that says "no they're not a front group for the RNC" makes it look as though it's undisputed. Nothing's been written to dispute it--how do you prove something like that? "No we're not" or "no they're not" seems like about all that could be said. How do you prove the absence of accused "ties?"
I know you are trying to make this NPOV as well, but don't you see the inferences suggested by the statement (for example): The VFF website was designed and is hosted by Campaign Solutions, part of the Donatelli Group, a firm that previously worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee? I mean it says so right in this opener: VFF has ties to the Republican Party and the George W. Bush administration. That's really stretching the facts to a certain POV. It's perfectly fair to say that the leaders of VFF are politically right-of-center, or that they support the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but TIES? Like they're a secret front-group of some kind? (That's clearly what they say in the SourceWatch article.) That's not factual in any way. --Beth C. 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another OIF Vet here chiming in. The bias on this page is absurd! Why not just state the facts? Why try to harm a good organization. Those of us who have actually served for this "Freedom of the Press" are outraged. The wilkipedia bias carries through more than military subjects. National Enquirer has more credibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.118.74 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Look, obviously between those of us on the talk page , we're not going to come to agreement on this. I STRONGLY dispute the assertion of "ties to the Bush administration." If it's relevant, say that the leadership of VFF are conservatives and support the Bush administration's policies on the war.

1) Their use of a certain group for their website design simply means that. It's a complete stretch to make it look like some sort of cabal. They may have used it because people they know of and may support in a non-tangible way used it; that's what everyone does. Would I say someone has "ties" to the DNC because they buy goods and services IAW the Buy Blue campaign?
2) Zirkle worked for Jerry Kilgore's campaign. OK, I can live with that, if the article is meant to be a description of Vets for Freedom as a Bush/GOP "front." Which of course, it should not. It should be a neutral description of the group, not a SourceWatch article. I don't see how this Kilgore mention could be used as anything but to support the statement that VFF is headed by political conservatives. If that's how the article were written, I would have no problem with the Kilgore reference.
3) The Herald Group: So? Just because they use conservative/Republican organizations doesn't mean they are part of some political "machine." Again, the Buy Blue argument. I also happen to patronize a local business because the proprietor held a political office and I agree with his views. Does that make me "tied" to him or his party? And it's not exactly news that Republican/conservative businesses and organizations support pro-military/politically right-leaning groups such as VFF. The point is: this inclusion, like that of Campaign Solutions, is not relevant to a Wikipedia article.
4) The statement about sharing information with Republican candidates cannot be verified. I have done an exhaustive search, and they all point to the same place, John Stauber [2]. Nothing in any cache, just the same one or two people saying they saw it. And perhaps not so coincidentally, he's not exactly a non-partisan himself.

5) Basically, this article relies VERY heavily on information from Source Watch alone, which makes this article not represent a balanced POV. I will refrain from using the same tactics as "Artificial Intelligence," but I simply cannot "assume good faith" in his case. --Beth C. 01:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(1)(2) (3) If someone buys goods and services per the Buy Blue campaign, you might say they are a "supporter" of that campaign. I've suggested another word besides "ties" - connections. Or "links"? Or "associations"? But let's not pretend that these guys are a bunch of non-political folks who don't have a bias to attach Democrats. They aren't and they do. It's okay to attack Democrats, but it's fraudulent to pretend to be ho-hum ordinary folk doing so. But the BEST way to deal with this is to point to ties/links/connections that the group has to the Democrats. (Note: I certainly don't support actually calling this group a "front organization" or a "Republican hit group" or whatever. It's up to the reader to decide what the ties/connections/links/associations mean, including whether they are simply coincidences. And, again, the best way to refute any implications is to provide ties that the group has to Democrats. (see also above). To use your analogy, if you patronize a bunch of local businesses whose owners have a common political view, and don't patronize any businesses of owners with the opposite views, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that "she has a history of patronizing businesses of owners whose political views she shares", and let the reader decide if that's coincidence or deliberate political intent.
(4) The statement about the privacy notice is certainly tenuous information. I might support removing it if the VFF has denied that they did this. I've changed the wording of the item to make it clearer that it is what one person found. But I'm curious - do you think Stauber was actually lying about this?
(5) Again, it's acceptable to rely heavily on a source for FACTUAL statements. And yes, that means that a lot of things are missing from an article. But the alternatives are (a) to shorten the article - cut back on the facts - in an attempt to make things more "balanced", or (b) to wait for others to add additional and countervailing information. The way of wikipedia is (b) - the strange thing is that a bunch of folks who DO have limited information and often have biases can actually build articles that are reasonably complete and coherent, and reasonably fair. But it does mean that articles in beginning stages can be quite incomplete. (I just edited the Mario Gabelli article to include the $100 million he's about to pay to settle a lawsuit - somehow the folks putting a bunch of positive info into the article had overlooked the lawsuit entirely!) John Broughton 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal website

Remarks deleted. Artificial Intelligence 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can use my personal website for WHATEVER I WANT. If you don't like it, don't read it. "When all else fails, attack." Pot, meet kettle. At least I use my own site, rather than Wikipedia to do it. Maybe you should review the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Wikiquette and related articles like WP:NPA, dear, and then get your own personal blog to attack me. And I think I have another post to write at my site now. Cheers! --Beth C. 05:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Artificial Intelligence - your posting in this section was totally out of line. If it wasn't for the general wikipedia policy that one should rarely remove comments of others, and because Beth has already responded, I would have deleted it.
Your posting had NOTHING to do with improving the article. As Beth said, if you don't like what she writes on her website, respond to it elsewhere. And that includes anyone's attacks (elsewhere) on wikipedia in general, on articles in particular, and/or on whatever an individual editor might have done or not done on wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating society about what happens outside of the wikipedia pages. John Broughton 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the remarks. John Broughton 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, John. --Beth C. 23:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

POSTING THE TRUTH

I am removing three falsehoods from this website. 1st, accoding to Sourcewatch's reserach, Vets for Freedoms website was created by Wildwires. I have called Wildwires, and have confirmed that they designed the site. So I have deleted line that says the website is designed by Camaign Solutions because it is not true.

Second, I think it is very significnt that VFF is tied to Enron. If you are going to post some ties, you can't pick and choose which ties are YOU think are relevant. If I can source them, and there is not reason to belived that the source is wrong, than WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO POST THE TRUTH!

Third, "Herald Group" doesn't work for VFF. I called them (novel concept...their office number is on their website) and they confirmed this.

Instead of perpetuating heresay, everyone on Wikipedia should do their own first-hand research like I have to find out the TRUTH instead of relying on inti-war websites to perpetuate their gestapo smear tactics!

-Les 21:35, 5 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot11b (talk • contribs)

(1) I will change this back.
(2) No, its NOT significant. That ONE of the cofounder's fathers working for a law firm that in turn worked for Enron is so unrelated [if my brother's friend had a sister who once dated a guy who worked in the White House in 1999, would that mean I'd be linked to Bill Clinton? If the year were 2002 instead, would I be tainted by what George W. Bush has done?] that it's totally inappropriate for the article. Which is why I removed it. And explained its removal in an edit comment. And will remove it again.
Have you heard of "degrees of separation"? What did the fathers of the other six cofounders do? More importantly, what did the COMPANIES that they worked for do? Is there a list of EVERY client that the mentioned law firm EVER had? Does it matter if the cofounder's father were to have never worked directly with Enron as a client? Why not list all of that? And, more importantly, have you EVER seen ANYTHING like what want to put in this article in ANY other article in wikipedia?
(3) Wikipedia forbids original research. Sorry. I realize that can be frustrating, but wikipedia requires information be verifiable, which means, for example, that a phone call just doesn't cut it. That information should stay in the article until you or someone else can point to a verifiable source that says it's wrong. John Broughton 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ties to Enron?" Oh come ON, what a stretch! That's the most obvious attempt at putting a very specific idea into the reader's head that I've seen in this article yet! Look, Patriot11b, John Broughton and I have had differences of opinion on this article as well, but you're WAY out of line. I totally agree with him that this "connection" (not) is NOT SIGNIFICANT.
My mother's cousin is a nun. Does that make me "tied to the Catholic Church?" I'm not even Catholic! My cousin is an airline pilot. Does that mean I "have ties" to American Airlines? I am SO removing that line about Enron. It's preposterous. --Beth C. 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JOHN BROUGHTON IS NOT GOD!

Dear John: You are NOT God. It is apparent that you are trying to manipulate this Wikipedia entry to you own personal liking. If you read the Wikipedia rules, you will see that if a user can link to something that is relevant to the subject, then that is what goes up. THIS IS HOW YOU GET THE FACTS!!! And by the way, John, it is connecting these subtle dots that BUSTS groups like Veterans for Freedom in untenable lies. It is better to have MORE information (as long as it is credible) than to have less.

Also, please stop editing the wording of my entries.

-Les 03:37, 6 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot11b (talk • contribs)

Dear Les -
  • It is considered normal wikipedia courtesy to sign/date your postings to talk pages. You do this with four tildes. [these things: ~ ] To make it easy, the wikipedia editing page, just below the "Save page" and "Show preview" buttons, allows you to do this by just clicking on the symbols that are just after the words "Sign your name:".
  • It is also considered a courtesy in wikipedia, when making an edit to an article, to put a brief explanation of what you are doing in the "Edit summary" box.
  • As to your request that I stop editing the wording of your entries, are you referring to the text you have added to the VFF article? If you are, would you please point to a wikipedia policy that says that one editor is not allowed to edit the words of another editor in an article?
John Broughton 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Les, but John Broughton isn't the only one who takes issue with your edits. I have been away from WP for a few weeks, but looking through the history, I take great issue with them as well.
"BUSTS groups like Veterans for Freedom in untenable lies?" Is this supposed to be an article or a blog post?

--Beth C. 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Bull Moose"; Enron link; sharing info with Republican organizations

And speaking of a blog post, just a question: Is it really relevant that some guy "Bull Moose" is friends with Zirkle? I'm sure Zirkle's got friends of all backgrounds, especially considering the guy's been all over the world in the military. Are we really going to go with who so-and-so is friends with? Again, like the "Enron ties" (an even more egregious inclusion), this is use of information that paints a particular point of view, it's insignificant, and it's irrelevant. There are millions of liberals who are friends with conservatives; does that mean either are less liberal or less conservative? I'm sure Ned Lamont (for example) has friends from right of center; is that a relevant point of criticism? Would it challenge his credibility?
I REALLY think the Bull Moose "tie" should be removed, but I'll wait for a response here so we can discuss it. --Beth C. 01:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

YES, it IS relevant that Bull Moose is friends with zirkle because Bull Moose is the official blog of the Deomcratic Leadership Council. This is not just some random blog, The DLC is the most powerful force in the deomocratic movement aside from the Democtatic National Committee itself. And when one entity is a political action group (Vets For Freedom), and the other entity is a political action group (DLC), that makes it more than a friendship, it makes it a "POLITICAL CONNECTION" which THE NAME OF THE-SUB SECTION!!!
If you want to talk about irrelevant entries, lets reconsider this one: "One critic of the VFF said that VFF's privacy notice on its website included, at one point, the following: "We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations."[4]" That critic is John Stauber, and anti-war activist and author of Weapons of Mass Deception: Uses of Propaganda on Bushes War on Iraq and The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the War on Iraq. There is no proof of this acusation. Stauber's credibiloity on this is questionable, since he has has taken great strides to discredit Vets For Freedom. So unless some one can show a secondary independant source, I think that accusation should be removed. One very biased, conflicted person's unfounded and unproveable accustions is NOT what Wikipedia is all about. If you want to turn Wikipedia into a blog full of heresay and rumors, please excuse yourself
Last, Knox Nunnally family tie to Enron is relevant, and I it should go back up. If you can't figure out the triangle that includes Bush, Texas, Big Oil, Iraq, Israel, Halliburton, Enron, Vinson-Mullens, Roberto Gonzalez, Knox Nunnally SR and KNOX NUNNALLY JR-----VETERANS FOR FREEDOM, and then you need a seeing eye dog!!!!!!! 03:42, 11 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot11b (talk • contribs)
Regarding the Bull Moose blog: (1) it is NOT the "official blog of the DLC". It describes itself as an "unofficial blog" that is "sponsored" by the DLC [3]. In fact, it is one of THREE blogs sponsored by the DLC [4], (2) you've put the Bull Moose link in the list of "VFF political ties have been cited by those concerned about its possible political goals", when NO ONE has EVER cited the Bull Moose connection as an issue of concern. [In other words, you've put an unlike item in a list. That's why I moved it out of the list (an edit you reverted). You've NEVER explained why you put it BACK into the list of "concerns". If it stays in the article at all (I'm indifferent), it should NOT be in this list.]
Regarding the "from time to time" item in the list, I agree that this is tenuous, essentially relying on the word of one person. My personal sense is that it was the result of a web designer copying a Republican website as a base for the VFF website, and someone just missed it in the cleanup, but I'm only speculating. In any case, I have no objection to removing it.
Finally, with regards to the Enron connection, may I suggest that neither Beth nor I need a seeing eye dog, and that you consider whether your insistence that it is obvious (whatever "it" is) might be taken by some people as a belief in conspiracy theories? In my opinion, it is not exactly proof of anything that (1) one out of seven co-founders (2) has a father who worked for a (3) large law firm where (4) one of the clients was Enron and (5) some of the lawyers at the firm (not necessarily the father) worked with that client. In fact, putting stuff like this in the article only weakens its credibility. (And, by the way, a triangle has only three points; you've listed eleven.) John Broughton 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Media Reports

"In Connecticut itself, an organization of mainly Republican veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is working with Republican strategist Dan Senor to boost Joe Lieberman's efforts to win re-election as an independent. Mr. Senor is working in an unpaid capacity for Vets for Freedom, which plans to kick off its pro-Lieberman push with a full-page ad in Monday's Hartford Courant that praises Mr. Lieberman for 'integrity, leadership, and unwavering commitment to America's troops.' The organization hopes to run other print and radio ads in the fall, and is also planning on campaigning door-to-door for Mr. Lieberman and holding a public rally on his behalf. 'These vets are grateful to Sen. Lieberman for not letting politics compromise his positions, and they wanted to express that,' Mr. Senor says."
"Some Republicans are being less bashful in their embrace of Lieberman. Vets for Freedom, an independent group of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is launching a media campaign in support of Lieberman. Among the group's advisers are prominent Republicans: former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. The group is attractive to Republicans 'who want to help Lieberman but [are] not going to start writing checks to his campaign because he's still a Democrat,' says a senior Republican affiliated with the group who asked not to be identified while the group is launching. Lieberman's former chief of staff is also helping the group along with prominent Democrats who are rooting for Lieberman but don't want to risk the ire of the Netroots."

Artificial Intelligence 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

New Organization Name/Status

Vets for Freedom now goes by the name Vets for Freedom Action Fund, a 527 committee. VFF-AF is a political action committee and no longer a veterans advocacy organization.

According to OpenSecrets [5], Vets for Freedom Action Fund, 12097 South Middle Road, Edinburg, VA, was established with the Federal Election Commission during the week of July 31, 2006, "To communicate with the public on veterans' issues and the war in Iraq."

The 12097 South Middle Road, Edinburgh, VA, address belongs to William Denman Zirkle, who is president of Shenandoah Valley Holdings LLC, according to 2004 FEC itemized receipts for "Bill Jones for US Senate". [6]

According to the VETSFORFREEDOM.ORG website, Vets for Freedom Action Fund is "a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain."

"The mission of the Vets for Freedom Action Fund is to ensure that our troops and veterans are represented in Washington by people of character who understand the stakes of our long war against Islamofascism. Steadfastness in this fight is critical to our long-term nation security, and it is the aim of our organization to stand by those in Washington who stand by our shared values as we fight our nation's Global War on Terror." [7]

The Vets for Freedom Action Fund "was borne out of Vets for Freedom, a leading voice representing active duty troops and veterans from the Global War on Terror," its website states.

According to the VFF-AF solitication page DonationReport.com:

"The Vets for Freedom Action Fund needs your help to support those in Washington, D.C. who have stood behind our troops in our battle against global extremism. Many of these principled Americans face tough battles this fall and they deserve our support for being steadfast and faithful to our troops at War.
"Please donate today to make your voice heard and to fight against the radical fringe who wants to steer our country towards defeat in the name of gutter ball partisan politics."
"Support the troops by supporting their mission....Make your voice heard today!"

The names of two former members of Vets for Freedom do not appear on the VFF-AF founders' list: Owen West, Vice Chairman, and Chris Niedziocha, Co-Founder.

Artificial Intelligence 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a snark, considered proper by Wikipedians or not ... we do the heavy lifting in SourceWatch, whether you consider us propagandists or not. We don't make this stuff up. Artificial Intelligence 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, AI. your work is fine by me! a few additions...Zirkle and another member of VFF wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday. I can't see it because it is a password site. If you go the VFF website they appear to be running a full page ad supporting a democratic congressman (Lieberman)...which shocks me since all other ties link them to republicans.
VFF and VFFAF are seperate organizations. Definitly controlled by the same people and closely related. I don't think one replaced the other. IA, can you confirm this?
This is getting good! -Les 03:46, 14 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot11b (talk • contribs)
The organization refers to itself as VFF-AF throughout the website and only has one contact address posted on the website now. Forgot to mention that change.
Vets for Freedom Action Fund
P.O. Box 314
Woodstock, VA 22664
Another change is that the mirror VFF page posted at Campaign Solutions no longer works, although do not know precisely when that happened. WaybackMachine.org does not have a copy archived.
FYI, here is the cache file of the original privacy policy with the Yahoo! time date stamp "as retrieved on May 17, 2006 05:58:54 GMT" which stated "If you choose to provide any personal information, such as your mailing address or phone number, we may use that information to contact you. We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations."
Interesting is it not that VFF (now VFF-AF) "advisors"—the Herald Group, Dan Senor, Bill Kristol, et al.—are all "helping" the group as unpaid volunteers (their words). The fact that they are all well-known Republican political operatives is insignificant? Bob's your uncle.
Thanks for the WSJ tip, Les. Recommend you read the full SW article for the details with verifiable links. Artificial Intelligence 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I plan to revise the article to reflect the new information in the next day or two, unless someone else does so first. Thanks for the additional info. John Broughton 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears the group is now named Vets for Freedom (registered as a 527 group), with a separate PAC committee that supports candidates called Vets for Freedom PAC, and VFF-AF is no longer operable http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/about/ and http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/contact/ and http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/pac/ and http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/pac/about/contact.aspx - or perhaps not. Is anyone clear on the current status? Flatterworld (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the status, but I think the name is pretty clearly Vets for Freedom. That's how they're identified in the press, the name of their website, etc. I'll leave this comment up here for two or three days, see if anybody disagrees with moving it back to Vets For Freedom. RayAYang (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Herald Group

The Jerry Zremski article, "Former vets with GOP ties boost war effort in blogs", in the Buffalo News, June 25, 2006 (available here) states: "Zirkle said the Herald Group, [Taylor] Gross' public relations firm, volunteered to work for Vets for Freedom." It also says that Gross "and two other Republican operatives, Matt Well and Doug McGinn, formed the Herald Group last September", and that "on April 28, Gross approached The Buffalo News with a proposal. Zirkle and Bellavia could file reporting, commentary or other exclusive stories to the paper, live from the war zone."

But Patriot11b says, above: "Herald Group" doesn't work for VFF. I called them (novel concept...their office number is on their website) and they confirmed this.

There are two problems with Patriotllb's posting. First, it's a violation of WP:NOR to edit an article (in this case, delete text) based on one's PERSONAL knowledge, as opposed to something that is verifiable. (I noted this above, and I got no response.) Second, the group may well not NOW be working for VFF; that doesn't mean they NEVER did any work for VFF.

So, in the absence of any further citation/source or argument, I plan to put this information, from the Buffalo News, which was removed from the wikipedia article, BACK IN. John Broughton 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Show Some Respect

I am quite disappointed by the tone in this Wikipedia post and discussion. It seems like everyone here is trying to "bust" or "expose" this organization, when in fact they have made their goals and intentions quite clear. It seems like immunendo, conspiracy theories and petty accusations are plenty, but the truly relevant material is absent. For example, Vets for Freedom wrote an editorial in one of the most widely distributed daily newspaper in the world last week (Wall Street Journal). Does anyone care to point this out? Vets for Freedom ran a full-page ad in the Hartford Courant today endorsing a Democratic Senator. Does any one care to mention this? Or does a privacy policy that was on their website for one hour in May consistute good Wikipedia material (I still don't understand why that is significant). It no wonder that Wikipedia is becoming a laughing stock. Lets clean it up a little, show some respect for the relevant facts, for others, as well as for Wikipedia.

Also (and maybe I am getting a little too opinionated here), let's remember that the people that started this organization have paid a very heavy price in service to their country on our behalf (I am assuming that everyone discussing this is an American; I may be wrong). Whether they have a political opinion or not, I find it it very sad that people are trying to discredit their beliefs by insinuating that they are shills for a political party. They are being treated like criminals, and I think that is sad.

I have taken the time to read all their published material, all of their radio interveiws (or read the transcripts), and all of their TV appearances. They are a pretty mainstream group, and by all these accounts, they only want America to succeed in the Middle East.

Thanks for hearing me out,

Jason 18:01, 14 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Lynn (talk • contribs)

Jason - what part of I plan to revise the article to reflect the new information in the next day or two, unless someone else does so first did you NOT understand? And did you notice the mentions, above, of the WSJ article? Or that others agree with you that the privacy policy issue may not be notable?
Also - like Les, you seem to think that putting your first name on your comments is a good way to identify yourself. IT'S NOT. Please use four tildes instead. (You'll see them immediately to the right of the words "Sign your name", three lines below the Edit Summary - all you need to do is click on those, before you click on "Save Page") Doing so adds a time/date and your actual wikipedia editor's name, so, for example, people can easily look and see how much experience you have with editing, look at comments that others may have made on your talk page, etc.
And, like Les, you used ALL CAPITALS IN YOUR SECTION TITLE. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. (It's considered the equivalent of SHOUTING.) I haven't changed the title because wikipedia norms are to leave other's words on a talk page just as is, typos/mistakes and all. Feel free to change it yourself.
Finally, welcome to wikipedia. I hope you'll join in the discussion about specifics in the article - that's the best way to improve it - and keep in mind the wikipedia policies on civility and assuming good faith. John Broughton 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
John:
I put the title in all-caps, because it was a chapter header of sorts and often times headers appear in caps. I have changed it per your request. I saw that there had been other titles in caps, so I did the same thing. I did not intend to "shout" at anyone (like you did by using all-caps in you rebutal) I thought that my contribution was civil and constructive, but thanks for the lecture anyway.
Jason Lynn 16:44, 15 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Lynn (talk • contribs)
Thank you for changing the section title to lowercase. But you're still not signing (wikipedia-wise) your name (four tildes), which also adds the date/time; this is really helpful when reading a discussion. You might want to try it out at the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Also, note the indentation, using colons (I've indented your comments) - this is also a norm on talk pages because it more easily shows who said what. And yes, things like signing and indentation and not using capitals aren't always followed, but they are really appreciated when they are. John Broughton 18:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional information

New: Here are the ad and VFF-AF WSJ links, as well as other postings to add. I think that the picture is becoming quite clear now.

Updated: Artificial Intelligence 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

information graphic on republican/VFF connections

Hi I've created an infographic representing (some/all?) of the links between republican organizations and VFF. This stems from claims that VFF is astroturfing. Anyway, it's available in many formats here and it's CC-BY-SA so it's wikipedia-ready if someone wants to put it in (maybe under the "political connections" section. Also if there's errors in it please let me know. Sbwoodside 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

More Political Ties

The Buffalo News, that has smacked down "Vets for Freedom" before writes some intresting http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060827/1040335.asp stuff about these "vets."

The Buffalo News writes "He noted that Gross' company hired a Democratic partner in June and that another key Vets for Freedom adviser is Bill Andresen, a Democrat and former chief of staff to embattled Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut." I think this should go in the "political ties" part of the entry.

I also think that the following 2 bullets should be consolidated into one single bullet:

  • The VFF website is hosted in a server owned by Campaign Solutions, a subsidiary of the Donatelli Group, a firm that previously worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee. [2]
  • One critic of the VFF said that VFF's privacy notice on its website included, at one point, the following: "We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations."[4]

The reason I say this is that I have been reading a lot of blogs and I think there is going to be ALOT more stuff being exposed about these guys soon. So we need to have our ducks in a row!

Let me know what you guys think about this. If no one objects, I'm going to put this stuff up in a few days

PS I am not computer wiz so I don't know how to "timestamp" my entries....so signing off, this is Jason Lynn at 11:26pm on Thursday, August 31, 2006.

I Agree with you Jason. That thing should be consalidated since they are related to each other and explains the relationship better.

And yes, that political tie should be made public. It is clear that these guys are a cowardly front group. I wonder if Bill Anderson ever was in the military. This group is run by the special interests in Washington and I really doubt thar these "real veterans" really exist. I was in the Army and I can smell these frauds a mile away. This is an illegal war that is just fattening the pockets of Halliburton and DICK Cheney and his cronies. WE NEED TO FIGHT BACK!!!

-Les

OK Guys. I made those changes. Here's my next proposal. We need to site all their newspaper articles. Zirkle has said some pretty disturbing stuff to th media, and it needs to be posted. He told CNN in January "The Miltary likes to kill people and break things." So unless you guys have any objections I am going to start posting ALL of this.

Jason Lynn 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey I just saw that someone erased all the information on the confounders???? WTF? Is some one trying to cover something up? Where's the explanation? I am going to put it back up

Jason Lynn 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations?

William Graham deleted the text with the edit summary comment I'm sorry but this whole section is one big series of copyright violations. Sentences seemed to be copied and pasted from a variety of new articles.

I've reverted the deletions. My understanding is that it's perfectly okay to copy sentences from a source, under the fair use doctrine, as opposed to (say) copying an entire article. In short, I think it's the responsibility of someone who wants to delete text, where it isn't obvious that there is a copyright violation, to justify the deletions. John Broughton 13:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He was referring to a different deletion than mine, but ok. Verbatum or near verbatum copies of copyrighted works is not allowed. Citations do not lower that burden. All work added to Wikipedia must be licensed and released by the copyright holder for use under the GFDL. Copy/pasted sentences are blatent violations. --waffle iron talk 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
William (aka waffle iron) - thanks for posting a comment here. We don't seem to be communicating, though. Your cited support for your deletions - Wikipedia:Copyright violations doesn't actually DESCRIBE what does or does not constitute a copyright violation - it simply says "don't do that". So, so far, all you've said is that you believe this is a copyright violation, without any further support for your position.
A more relevant policy is Wikipedia:Copyrights. That policy says, among other things, If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use" ... you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). Since the text in question is in fact documented as to its source, the question really is whether the text is in the article constitutes fair use.
So - if you think the text in question violates fair use, please explain why. Also, please explain whether a minor rewording of the text would satisfy your concerns. Thanks. John Broughton 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The page is a copy/paste of the about page for the VFF site. That is a copyright violation unless the author explicitly releases the text to be used in Wikipedia. You can google search most sentences and find direct copying from a variety of sources, not limited to their site. I would rather remove the whole section instead of having to submit this to copyright problems, which entails replacing the whole page with a template while it's looked into. I'm removing it again. --waffle iron talk 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
William - the text you removed cited at least TWELVE different sources. Why do you assert that The page is a copy/paste of the about page for the VFF site. (I looked - it's NOT.)
Yes, if the deleted text WERE simply a massive copy/paste, it WOULD be a violation of fair use. But it's not. (Did you, for example, notice that the wikipedia page lists SEVEN people and the "About Us" page of the VFF lists only FIVE??)
I am once again going to put the text back into the article. I need to warn you at this point that if you remove it again, you may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I urge you to read that carefully, and follow it.
And I note again my questions, which you ignored: If you think the text in question violates fair use, please explain why. Also, please explain whether a minor rewording of the text would satisfy your concerns. John Broughton 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use only applies to small quotations not entire passages. Rewording isn't enough either. You should write it in your own words. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The four factors that affect fair use are:
  • 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • 2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
As noted above, the assertion that a mass copy/paste was done is FALSE. My review of what WAS done is that the editor took small amounts of text from a variety of sources, and did in fact rewrite parts of that (note that "rewriting" is not one of the four fair use criteria). Given that what appears in the article is (1) for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the copyrighted works are generally publicly viewable; (3) portions used were insubstantial; (4) there is no impact whatsoever on the value of the copyrighted work, I conclude there is no problem here. John Broughton 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John. It appears that someone is trying to sabatoge this Wikipedia entry. I have been checking things out on Wikipedia for years and have never seen this. What is the next step to get this stuff fixed and get the article back up? And who the heck is the guy that did this?

Jason Lynn 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is now listed here, and I've added a comment that I think it being listed is unjustified, and that the user who listed it has refused to discuss it, or to acknowledge any factors (noted above) that indicate it is NOT a copyright violation: Wikipedia:Copyright problems#2006-09-16
My reading is that an admin isn't going to even LOOK at the page for a full week: Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days. So essentially readers are locked out of the article for at least that long. I can't find any page to complain that a copyright violation complaint is bogus (for example, not here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. Nor is there any indication that if someone misuses the process, there is any likely punishment. I'd certainly welcome someone else concluding otherwise. John Broughton 19:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin with experience in dealing with copyright issues. I have looked over the article, and we cannot use text under "fair use" if it would be possible to rewrite the information in our own words. It clearly would in this case, so the section is a copyright violation. I have restored the rest of the article. If users on this page had spent half as much energy rewriting the section in question as they have arguing about it, the section would not be a copyright violation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Republican" Non-Profit Organization??

OK, who tried to sneak "Republican" into the opening line? Well I just took it out. It is kind of hard to call a group "Republican" when the only 2 people they have endorsed are Democrats (Joe Lieberman D-CT, and Jim Marshall D-GA). So I have removed it since it is propaganda, and there was no discussion to put it in there in the first place.

This wikipedia entry has become completely bastardized by political hacks, and it is time that we take out the trash. Jason Lynn

Ok, guys, I added some developments that happened since the entry was shut down by the Cpoywrite thing, including:

-The info about the cofounders is in there -The new information about the ad campaigns for Joe Lieberman and Jim Marshall is in there -The info (cited by the AP) that Bill Kristol and Dan Senor are advising them is in there. -I also added that David Bellavia has secured a mid-six figure book deal according to Publishers Weekly ....Thanks to John Stauber at Source Watch...way to keep an eye on the War Profiteering, John (:

I also fixed some typos.

This entry was sabotaged for so long that I went ahead and put this stuff in there (most of it had been erased at some point). Let me know if there is anything that you think we should discuss. Cheers!

Jason LynnJason Lynn

Doing some research on another topic I happened to come across this and thought I'd post it. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:lsI-n_ufqA0J:bamapachyderm.com/archives/2006/10/27/sourcewatch-prwatch-cmd-john-stauber-and-artificial-intelligence-can-take-their-blogad-and-ram-it-up-their-asses/+%22sourcewatch-prwatch-cmd-john-stauber-and-artificial-intelligence-can-take-their-blogad-and-ram-it-up-their-asses%22&hl=en&lr=&strip=1. Perhaps it has no bearing, but certainly does seem to be someone with an axe to grind.

NPOV Rewrite needed

The article needs to be completely re-written so that it approaches encyclopedic style rather than a political ad or brochure. Also, some of the intro text has been copied from this website: http://victorycaucus.com/Organizations_Directory/. That text is a copyright violation and must be deleted immediately per WP:COPYVIO.—goethean ॐ 17:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, it seems rather incredible that the copyright tag would be used to blank an entire article from viewing on the basis of complaints about a single section. Why didn't you excise the appropriate section, or limit the tag to that section? RayAYang (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I only intended to place a Copyvio template at the top of the article. I didn't know that that template, when subst'ed, would remove all of the text in the article. The fact remains that somewhere between some and all of the text in the article was copied from somewhere else.—goethean ॐ 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm confused. The tag says not to do anything until an administrator shows up. That seems rather drastic, and might leave this article indefinitely ugly-looking with that horrifying tag up front -- I edited the tag so that it only covers the entry text, which seems to be the source of the copyright controversy. Would you or anybody object if I deleted the intro section and rewrote it to avoid copyright issues? RayAYang (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind. My only concern is that all plagiarized and potentially copyrighted text is removed from the article.—goethean ॐ 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I can do all plagiarized text. Just the parts people have identified :) I'll give it a shot and rewrite the intro blurb. RayAYang (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding neutrality -- do you, Goethean, or anybody else, have any further specific complaints regarding neutrality? As per my usual style when dealing with potential controversy, I'll wait 2 or 3 days. If nothing comes up, I'll remove the POV tag from the top of the article. RayAYang (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I have removed two accusations that I expect will be the subject of some controversy here, as being relatively irrelevant and scurrilous. First, it is a non sequitur that Vets for Freedom support political candidates, rather than veterans. The organization is not an advocacy group for veterans. It is an advocacy group formed by veterans for an explicitly political purpose.

Secondly, the non-tax-deductible aspect is also a non-sequitur. The group claims to be tax-exempt, as is standard for nonprofit political groups. But donations to political causes are never tax deductible -- a major reason why most charities with a political action arm are careful to create a separate 501(c)4 organization and keep the accounts separately, so as not to jeopardize their status. Best, RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vets_For_Freedom/Archive_1&oldid=1061934115"