The Washington Redskins have been paying for ads promoting a new Web site, RedskinsFacts.com, which supposedly sprung up organically from frustrated former players who wanted to defend the team’s embattled name, which many find offensive. (Slate turned up evidence that the Web site is tied to image-makers Burson-Marsteller, which was later confirmed by the team.)

“We believe the Redskins name deserves to stay,” the Web site says on its “facts” landing page. “It epitomizes all the noble qualities we admire about Native Americans — the same intangibles we expect from Washington’s gridiron heroes on game day. Honor. Loyalty. Unity. Respect. Courage. And more. On this page, you can read more about the storied history of the Redskins identity.”

Anytime an organization sets up a “facts” Web site, it calls out for fact checking. So how does this stack up — and what’s missing? (The Fact Checker obviously does not take a position on whether the name should be changed.)