Talk:The Foundation for a Better Life/Archives/2012

Older comments

I put up a stub, because I really want to know more about the history of this foundation, their funding, etc...

I was in Chile and I saw ads by the "Fundacion para una vida mejor" for "honesty". They have ran ads for years in certain newspapers with tagline "Commitment. Pass it on.".

I find this extremely mysterious and would love to know more about it. Paul Dehaye 22:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that; I've seen billboards and theater ads from this group for a few years now, but it seems to keep an extremely low profile in general. --Dirk Gently 16:57:21, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

Mysterious AND sinister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.18.10 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two entries for this "Foundation" in Search, the first (highest ranked) goes to a misspelled page, for which there is now a redirect to the correctly spelled page. Can the misspelled page simply be removed?

It shouldn't be removed. If the searcher looks for the misspelling, a redirect will get him to the correct page with the correct spelling. If the redirect page is deleted, the searcher gets a bigger runaround from which he or she might never find the information that he or she is looking for. That's the entire point of a redirect page. Respectfully, SamBlob 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization IRS status

Other than reading like a bit like an advertisement, based almost completely on non-RS primary sources (their own site), according to Guidestar, the organization seems to be a Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust.[1] AndroidCat (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

notability

I removed the notibilty tag because there appears to be plenty of news coverage from reliable sources about the organization and there were no notes placed on this talk page as to why the tag was originally placed on the article. 70.109.182.176 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the tag was placed was obvious from the state of the article at that time.[2] However, the references seem to have improved since then. AndroidCat (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Need a complaint address!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.3.155 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 

I looked up this topic because their advertising appears on TV frequently. It would be a disservice to the public if the listing is eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.29 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Funded 100% by Philip Anschutz

RE: "it is entirely funded by Philip Anschutz, a conservative Evangelical Christian."<ref>[http://www.oaaa.org/news/release.asp?RELEASE_ID=1360 Outdoor Advertising Association of America article confirming Anschutz's role]</ref>{{Dead link|date=September 2010}}{{citation needed|date=February 2011}}

Doesn't anyone know about Archive.org? This dead link, found on archive.org[3]

This page is actually a copy of an article from The Toledo Blade, by Robin Erb, entitled: Signs Sell Precious Goods: Compassion, Courage.

The article states:

"And though Mr. Dixon was tight-lipped about the financing, he confirmed earlier reports that Philip Anschutz, Colorado founder of Qwest Communications and the Anschutz Foundation, is the driving force."

How someone got the idea that this foundation is "it is entirely funded by Philip Anschutz" from this statement is beyond me, and I am removing it. Adamtheclown (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation for a Better Life → Foundation for a Better Life – As shown by Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the definite article "The" should not be included in the titles of articles about institutions. I moved this to the requested name, but another editor moved it back, so I formally request it be moved to the correct form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia naming conventions: When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it. So that's the question here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding - doing a gnews search, it looks like capitalization on the "the" is roughly 50/50. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE The website primary source very clearly and capitalise The and reptitively use The in the formal name. Dalit Llama (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the guidelines point to us using the common name, not the formal name, and prefer the unofficial sources to the official one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Adverb especially used to provide deference, not preference, to official sources of organization, which uses The in running text. Look at Universities example in guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalit Llama (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Universities" is listed as a special case in that guideline, and even then it is said "When in doubt, do not use the definite article". --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.