Talk:Project Censored

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can this be removed from cleanup now? rhyax 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "citation needed" template

I removed the template from the summary of responses to criticism. The first sentence makes three points, separated by semicolons, and all three are supported by the citation that follows that sentence. On the other hand, the preceding paragraph, with a shotgun-load of right-wing attacks on Project Censored, is completely unsourced, so I inserted the template there. I also provided a citation for the Cronkite quotation. JamesMLane t c 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Offhand I don't know any web pages that'll say it, but as an alumnus of Sonoma State with a conservative bent and a founding member of that school's College Republicans branch, I can assure you it's a common sentiment among us knuckle-dragging racist war-mongering right wing nuts. Garrett Albright 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input about the KDRWMRWN viewpoint, but shouldn't the phrase "right-wing nuts" also be hyphenated? JamesMLane t c 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be as "right wing-nuts." My error. Garrett Albright 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words and POV in "Criticism" section

The Criticism section displays bias and antipathy. It opens by using the labels "leftist" and "rightist" as if they represented an objective standard, whereas in fact, the labels themselves as applied here are extremely POV. This section needs to be completely rewritten to name explicitly who makes what charges, and from what political background. The use of the passive voice and phrases like "Some critics complain" comes under the heading of weasel words—see the WP guideline WP:WEASEL. -- IslandGyrl 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. The (former) first paragraph has been left unsourced for too long. The writers appear to be relying on their personal experience of the Project (see above section of this discussion page), rather than referencing actual published critics. I have written an alternative first paragraph for your consideration. I have left the (original) second paragraph in place, and attempted to provide references to specific published criticisms in the (original) third paragraph, as well as tone down the language somewhat. If this meets your (and Wikipedia's) standards, I would propose to eliminate the old first paragraph (which now appears as the second paragraph, with all its unsourced statetments), and propose that you remove the "weasel words" notice. What say? Dwalls 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)