Talk:Federation for American Immigration Reform/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Federation for American Immigration Reform. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yjtalk0825. Peer reviewers: Karyan23.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
NPOV
Article expresses editor's viewpoints as facts. Previous versions show that article has more bias. FAIR believes in significant reductions in immigration, both legal and illegal, and is not anti-immigration. SaltBarista (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- We go by what sources meeting WP:RS say. Are you under the impression only one editor has written the article? Doug Weller talk 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- This article is very biased. Why are they "anti-immigrant"? That's not what their statement says and their website is used as the reference at the end of the sentence. Gurbuster (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Biased and leading grammatical structure
FAIR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was founded in 1979 by Michigan surgeon, eugenics supporter, and former president of Zero Population Growth John Tanton, former historian of labor movements and director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Otis L. Graham Jr., and the late Sidney Swensrud, a former chairman of Gulf Oil and former governing board member of Planned Parenthood
First of all, this is a run-on sentence.
Second, placing two or three biographical facts (at least one damaging fact from the progressive viewpoint) before even mentioning the names is a nasty bit of work.[my bad: on rereading moments later, I see that I severely mis-parsed the nature of the biolgraphical facts; sincere apologies for my excessive agitation] Do we treat "upstanding" members of society in this way? Not usually, that I've seen. Between the subordination of the run-on sentence itself, and the breathless subordination of pre-biography, there's definitely an intrusive pall of ten-foot-pole here (as it reads to me).
Third, what's with all this former/late business? When, precisely was Swensrud late? Most likely after founding this organization. When were all these other roles and titles former? By implication—it seems—before this organization was founded.
Whatever others think about my observations, surely there's a way to do better; this simply can't be the best we can do. — MaxEnt 18:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence is not biased, it's accurate and grammatically fine. I oppose any change to it on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to complain about adjectives like "former" and "late" when they are accurate and necessary. That's like complaining about the use of the past tense when referring to someone who has died. I reject these criticisms. BirdValiant (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)