Talk:Liberty Fund

Criticisms Section

There were a number of criticisms from Al Gore's book that were only tangentially related to Liberty Fund. I created a new "criticism" section and included only that information directly aimed at Liberty Fund. Tyrannicide (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you read the book it's directly related, so I've restored it but with a bit more context (he's referring to three groups, not just the LF). Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I’ve restored it again. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This page is feeling a bit like it has been cleaned by PR. 72.230.69.40 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Board of Directors not appropriate

If you look at Microsoft, Google, Apple, Inc. - they don't have their board of directors listed. Just name the top two and any with articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't pretend to write unbiased encyclopedias covering contemporary social issues. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Description of LF as a "nonprofit educational foundation"

Scott Simon says "Liberty Fund, a nonprofit educational foundation." Since this is what the RS says, what guidance prevents the article from using this term? Other sources use this terminology as well. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the greatest weight goes to the IRS with whom issues of this sort get categorized and logged. IRS calls them a "private operating foundation". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The IRS info is interesting. But does the IRS have a classification for "educational" foundations? In any event, we have RS that uses the term "educational". The term educational clarifies that LF is not a church, charity, or other type of non-educational private operating foundation (Private foundation (United States)). – S. Rich (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. Simon's a second-string radio chat guy. Find a WP:RS which has examined the issue, not just repeated the press release or website language from the Liberty Fund. Read the sources. This is an organization with a specific purpose. It promotes its point of view. That's not what WP readers will get from a quick read of the word "educational" in the lede. Find an RS which supports your view. You can do better than Simon's boilerplate intro to his radio chat about the Wizard of Oz, not a straw man, tin man, cowardly lion, etc. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

e/c

I would write it this way,

"Liberty Fund, Inc. is classified by the IRS as a “private operating foundation” (insert link I posted in prior comment) and describes itself as an “educational foundation”. (Insert full cite to www.libertyfund.org/about.html). It promulgates the libertarian views of its founder through monetary grants and a variety of direct promotional activities and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, would one of you post it please? BTW, I did not include the last sentence of opening paragraph only because I saw nothing to tweak. My intent was to leave it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

IRS data: EIN is 35-1320021 (); Indiana secretary of state registration:

Control Number: 194278-162 Status: Active Entity Type: Non-Profit Domestic Corporation Entity Creation Date: 8/19/1960 url:

For posting when PP ends. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

It was either this or 2 blocks. Sort it out here please. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need any protection. I had done more research, found some sources, and posted them. User:SPECIFICO doesn't like some of the stuff I added, and he reverted. I did not edit war with any of these edits. SPECIFICO said he wanted the "origins" material developed in the text (as opposed to the infobox alone), so I restored and added {{Under construction}} with the hopes that I might continue to develop the article. When I saw that material was being removed (as opposed to tagging) I gave up. Why did I say "hack away"? Well, the material that had been tagged {{cn}} by SPECIFICO a few hours earlier had just been removed, as was my editor comment "<!-- Per the Morgan Knull reference-->" in the infobox. But do we need protection? I hope not, much less consideration of any blocks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I felt I had to protect or report you all to WP:3RRN, and that wasn't something I wanted to do. If the two of you come to an agreement quickly I'll unprotect - if you do, let me know on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Describing "ama-gi" in the infobox

Regarding this revert, my thoughts are as follows: For an infobox, it is certainly appropriate to provide a logo for the organization in question. Since this logo also happens to be a word, it makes sense to provide a link to the article we have on this word. It might also be appropriate to provide a translation. The reason this organization chose this word for its logo is that it was (according to them) the first usage of the word "freedom". They didn't chose this word because it means "return to the mother". While the later is certainly one correct (if overly literal) translation of the word, in my opinion providing this translation in the infobox, and only this translation, confuses the reader more than it clarifies. There's certainly an interesting discussion to be had over the proper way to interpret the word, but the infobox is hardly the appropriate place for it. Neither is its etymological origin a fitting tidbit here. Gabbe (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no big deal. Doug Weller (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberty Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160612071422/http://www.libertyfund.org/logo.html to http://www.libertyfund.org/logo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Gore material

I’ve restored the Gore material. The arguments for removing it were absurd. These claims are fully supported in the literature. Furthermore, we currently have a situation on The Founding Myth where an editor is claiming that the Liberty Fund is not a right wing group. That is the height of absurdity. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but it's too long, one-sided, and boring. One does not get the feeling that whoever originally added that made any effort at all to gather a spectrum of reaction. WackyEd (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

OR in Reception

Users Discospinster and Rhododendrites claim that the additions in Receptions are original research, that is, inserting unpublished information or one's personal analysis.

Yet, they provide no proof of the claim, nor guidance.

Please look at it and provide guidance.

However, Gore based his assertions on reports made by the Community Rights Counsel; the CRC made two reports, one in 2000 and one in 2004. Gore published The Assault on Reason in 2007. In spite of the years in between, in his 2007 book Gore failed to mention and interact with any response to the CRC's criticism of the organizations at issue. For instance, in his 2007 book Gore failed to interact with the 2005 criticism made by Prof. Jonathan H. Adler towards the CRC's attacks on the abovementioned organizations. Adler argues for the biased nature of the CRC, as well as listing some bipartisan attendees and endorsees of the seminars and conferences condemned by Gore. Adler says: "Of course, it’s not just any privately funded seminars that attract CRC’s ire: They’ve been remarkably silent about other seminars sponsored by universities or organizations like the Aspen Institute and the Ford Foundation, leading some to suspect that CRC’s real objection is to exposing judges to views with which CRC disagrees." Additionally, Gore's 2007 book failed to mention and interact with what Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Thomas Schelling said in 2005 in response to the CRC executive director, Douglas T. Kendall. Schelling separates the question of judicial conduct from the question of judgment about the organizations: "Whether judges should accept travel, room, and board to attend twenty-one hours of serious discussion over four days is for the Committee on Codes of Conduct to decide." Then, regarding FREE [Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment], Schelling says: "I have participated in 168 hours of lectures and discussion at FREE and have never witnessed anything that an observer could interpret as remotely corresponding to that characterization." ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Hi. There's one straightforward thing here, and one complicated thing. The straightforward thing is the WP:OR issue: it looks like none of the sources you cited mention Gore or the book, but are positioned here as a response to it. On Wikipedia, that's very straightforward original research. The more complicated bit is [there's a book X that bases its claims on Y, and Z criticizes Y without mentioning X]. For this article, I suspect the best outcome would not be to add original research, but to build out the section to include full coverage of the underlying claims, with Gore as one source among multiple. That coverage would need to prioritize reliable sources, which typically means opinion pieces carry less weight (which isn't to say they can't be included). I do not know enough about the subject to know how much of that coverage exists or how difficult it would be, but WP:WEIGHT would be a careful balance (with claims presented in rough proportion to how the best sources present them per WP:RS). Remember, for any statement on Wikipedia we need that statement and its relevance to the subject backed up directly by a source. So no sources that don't mention the Liberty Fund, no sources that don't mention a book to rebut a book, etc. Also pinging Springee and Simonm223, who I think have looked at this subject, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we should not be trying to fix observed deficiencies in articles with original research or synth. If sources don't make statements then Wikipedia also should not. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody asked anybody to "fix" anything. I asked for "guidance," which is very different. For the rest, please see comments below. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Interesting. If science and academia had this same Wikipedia, nothing would ever get developed or accomplished. Usually in a peer-reviewed article (I have several of them) is perfectly reasonable to criticize claim X that appear in study Y by using study A even if study A does not mention or interact directly with study Y: as long as study Y is relevant to the critique of claim X, it is totally acceptable to do so.

Not complaining, just saying. I guess this is a Wikipedia rule to keep things brief, but even in real everyday life nobody's mind operates like that. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Errata corrige: as long as study A is relevant for the critique of claim X. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Please carefully read WP:SYNTH. You are adding your own commentary that is not explicitly mentioned in the sources you are citing. That is original research/sythesis, and it's not permitted in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 18:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see comment below. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So, personal commentary asides and point taken on that, to summarize:

1) The Wikipedia page in question is about entity Y.

2) Gore mentions in book L claim X against entity Y.

3) Claim X is made by group Z.

4) Claim X by group Z is questioned by A, B, and C in order to defend entity Y (the Wikipedia article in question).

5) The respective claims of A, B, and C are edited into Y as a counterargument to claim X against entity Y (the Wikipedia article in question), and claim X is again based on what group Z says.

6) Wikipedia says that's wrong because groups A, B, and C do not mention......book L...even though A, B, and C *do mention Y (the Wikipedia article in question)*...and even though L is neither the article entry (that is Y) nor bears any relevance to the value of what A, B, and C say against claim X used by book L against entity Y (the Wikipedia article in question).

Again, so interesting and fascinating. I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just so deeply fascinating. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, usually what it comes down to is that if your argument for your inclusion looks like a piece of transitive arthritic, it's probably WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If you want to write something in an article saying X, you need to find a source saying X. You shouldn't need more than one letter to explain it! (It's a bit more complex because you also can't combine things in a way that carries an obvious implication that isn't supported by the sources; eg. no saying "Senator Smith did X.[cite saying what he did, which doesn't say there's anything wrong with it] X is illegal.[cite saying that X is illegal, which doesn't mention Senator Smith]" - introducing the uncited implication that Senator Smith broke the law. That seems to be what your additions here are doing - you're trying to argue yourself that Gore is wrong, without actually presenting sources saying he's wrong. That's (generally) a no. We summarize the sources, we don't assemble arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, amazing. Merely addressing about the editorial bureaucracy of the matter while saying nothing of value about the matter itself (that is, the questioned addition and the argument in the comment above, both ultimately unaddressed). Ineffective, but nothing less than outstanding nonetheless.

It's now clear that the proper laws of research and argumentation don't apply on Wikipedia. Virtually anything can be judged as Synth defined that way. No wonder most of academia doesn't look at Wikipedia as a reliable source, with these irrational editorial rules one can make up word salads to elide any addition a group of editors doesn't like because it's allegedly Synth. ~2026-37504-92 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You probably didn't need to hear the same thing from multiple people, but the rules are pretty transparent and largely consistent. The laws of research and argumentation don't apply because this is just a place that summarizes what's already published about a subject, without conducting research and without adding our own arguments. There are flaws in that system, but it's also why this thing is able to work at all. It's frustrating when the rules prevent an interested party from getting an article to say what they think it should say, and sometimes, arguably, an article suffers for that reason, but lots of people Know The Absolute Truth of the Matter, so we require 1:1 citations to defer judgment about truth to others. "Like" has nothing to do with it on this end. Happy to look over a draft from a different approach, along the lines of my last message, should that arise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"It's frustrating when the rules prevent an interested party from getting an article to say what they think it should say"

So many assumptions going on there. More seriously, it's like the comments with the numbered list was never posted. ~2026-37278-90 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"Happy to look over a draft from a different approach, along the lines of my last message, should that arise."

Sincerely appreciate that, but it seems that even if I delete the personal commentary you would still revert it because you have judged the sources not to be relevant (1:1, as you called it), and that merely because they do not address Gore's claim as such directly about Liberty Fund, but because they address the study whose conclusions Gore repeats in his book. ~2026-37278-90 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"We summarize the sources, we don't assemble arguments." — @Aquillion

"we require 1:1 citations to defer judgment about truth to others. 'Like' has nothing to do with it on this end." — @Rhododendrites

I wish I could believe you guys, but the reality of Wikipedia editorship is far from the neutral utopian you describe. For example, one Wikipedia editor in 2017 deleted a bunch of reviews of the book "The Assault on Reason" Wikipedia page, with the empty explanation that "We are not a book review site", see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Assault_on_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=766988301

Interestingly, most of the reviews reported and then deleted are negative of the book. But I suppose the scripted Wikipedia response to that observation is that I or the one who included those reviews are being in bad faith. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you shared the right link here. But I will note that The Assault on Reason faced so much disruption from your temporary account edit-warring WP:OR in that it had to be locked. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, the link works for me. And you are diverting (to be fair to you, the only editor so far who has answered question or points directly has been Rhododendrites, so you're not the only one diverting). I copy and paste what I said: "the reality of Wikipedia editorship is far from the neutral utopian you describe. For example, one Wikipedia editor in 2017 deleted a bunch of reviews of the book "The Assault on Reason" Wikipedia page, with the empty explanation that "We are not a book review site", see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Assault_on_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=766988301" You are welcome to share your thoughts on the subject matter if you have any and if they're relevant.

I am from the editorial world. Often "disruption" and its consequences are created by editorial incompetence, and you should ask yourself if that is the case here instead of jumping to conclusions. Worry not, I won't touch that The Assault on Reason Wikipedia page, you can unlock it if you want, I won't go back to it, I'll leave it as empty and uninformative as you want it to be. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The diff you are posting does not include "we are not a book review site". And I would thank you to avoid casting aspersions going forward and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223, see here, edit made at 12:35, 25 February 2017 by R. fiend https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Assault_on_Reason&action=history It says "We are not a book review site", and yet I can find dozens of Wiki pages with lengthy reports on receptions with many reviews cited and quoted.

Casting aspersions? I was merely asking you to consider, as I said I am from the editorial world and I make mistakes all the time. And The Assault on Reason page is indeed empty and uninformative, it says nothing that cannot be read on its Amazon page. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That's just the history page. You claim someone made a specific edit and yet you cannot present a diff of it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

And you're referring to a 2017 edit???? How is a decade-old edit relevant? Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It entirely relevant, but at this stage it's obvious that you have not read or understood the conversation. If you don't properly read the conv, starting from --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC), you cannot see that your last two comments are entirely incongruous with the context of the conversation. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I read that comment. It was explaining to you why you should not insert SYNTH. It has nothing to do with a decade old edit that was not made by Aquillion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to explain that to you again.

Aquillion said: "We summarize the sources, we don't assemble arguments." 23:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Rhododendrites said: "we require 1:1 citations to defer judgment about truth to others. 'Like' has nothing to do with it on this end." 00:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Then I questioned those specific claims, by saying: "I wish I could believe you guys, but the reality of Wikipedia editorship is far from the neutral utopian you describe. For example, one Wikipedia editor in 2017 deleted a bunch of reviews of the book "The Assault on Reason" Wikipedia page, with the empty explanation that "We are not a book review site", see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Assault_on_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=766988301

Interestingly, most of the reviews reported and then deleted are negative of the book. But I suppose the scripted Wikipedia response to that observation is that I or the one who included those reviews are being in bad faith."

The reason for the edits can be found here, edit made at 12:35, 25 February 2017 by R. fiend https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Assault_on_Reason&action=history It says "We are not a book review site".

So yes the point is entirely relevant, if you followed the actual conversation. If that's still not clear to you, I cannot help you further. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You repeating the conversation doesn't make it more relevant. You have claimed, without a working diff mind, that @R. fiend reverted reviews in 2017. I went ahead and found the diff you should have actually posted however I have to say two things:

1. I am not a WP:COPYVIO expert by any means but even I can see what a copyvio nightmare the section R. fiend deleted was.
2. Having looked at the deleted section, I still fail to see any relevance to this edit, from a decade ago, deleting a bunch of obvious copyright violations to this discussion now. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You asked me to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and yet here we still are. :) Let's just both follow your advice. Relax, I said I won't touch the pages anymore. In fact, this is going to be my last comment. I admit I knew little about Wikipedia editorial world before trying to contribute contents to a couple of pages. I know more now. I have nothing personal against anyone here, and I sincerely thank you all for showing me that Wikipedia's world is not for me, which is fine. So, @Aquillion, @Ohnoitsjamie, @Rhododendrites, @Springee, @Simonm223, thank you for your help, I sincerely wish you the best for all your lives, all of which are valuable and important. After the stress of this conversation, I hope you might have a good day filled with positivity. Have a good life everyone. ~2026-29755-50 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I was previously involved here but I think it might have been at a notice board . I have to agree with the OR claims. The logic may be sound (I didn't follow the arguments enough to say one way or the other) but the sources clearly do not mention Gore. Thus it would violate OR to use these sources to make comments about Gore. Also, one of the sources is an OpEd which would also be an issue with respect to claims about Gore even if it did mention his work. Springee (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources have to mention Gore...even if the article is not about Gore, but about Liberty Fund mentioned by both Gore and by the sources...and even though both Gore and the sources are mentioned in a "Reception" section where those sources were mentioned as counterpoints to Gore since both Gore and the sources are addressing to *the same* study that mentions Liberty Fund...but Gore's words can stay, while the counterpointing sources have to go......etc. ~2026-37278-90 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)