Talk:Space Frontier Foundation

This is a different group than the United States Space Foundation located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. There should be another page created for the other organization. 05:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?

This page reads like an advertisement. For example, although it has the illusion of being well referenced, of the nine citations, the first six inline citations point to its own website; one reference is a reference to an honor given the co-founder (with no mention of the foundation in the link), and one is a link to the home page of an organization that has certified SFF as a charity, again, with no mention of the foundation on their web page. I think probably th article should be pruned back and focussed on actual actions and accomplishments of the foundation, not serving as a platform to repeat the philosophies of the founders (which, in any case, should be moved to the articles on the respective founders.

Some of the text seems to be content free. For example: "Space Frontier Foundation has been supportive of various private sector efforts such as the Ansari X Prize, the SpaceShipOne project, and entrepreneur Robert Bigelow's plans to build a space hotel." What exactly is meant by "has been supportive"? Does this mean they've supported these efforts with funds?

"The Foundation’s current strategic focus is to enable the growth of the NewSpace community." What does this mean? Focus what? Enable how?

"When President Bush announced his ‘Renewed Spirit of Discovery’ vision on January 13, 2004, the Foundation's policy toward NASA has been evolving as NASA’s reaction to this change of direction has evolved." What does this mean? If this is a list of their opinions, why should this be on Wikipedia? What relationship does this have to the actions and accomplishments of the organization?" Lulu71339 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section with the five-star charity. It's no longer current-- hasn't been for five years-- and ever if it were current, it seems to be rather marginal as encyclopedic material anyway. 209.190.168.162 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to get a more neutral tone on this article. I'm a former chairman, so I know I run the risk of saying things I know are true that can't be easily referenced. If anyone wants to ding me for them, I'm happy to take the suggestions and try to chase down sources. Adiffer (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the history section probably belongs in the project section as the material gets project specific. The business plan competition has occurred more than once, so the history section should probably speak more at a meta-level while details go elsewhere. I won't shift anything yet, though, because the project section is obviously weak and at risk of looking like an advertising section. Project details should obviously contain neutral references to documentation, participants, and organizers.

The key players section is also dated material now. I'll see what I can do to get an updated list of directors, officers, and staff. Alfred Differ (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)