Talk:Rainbow/PUSH

message: This article needs to better explain what function the Rainbow and PUSH where formed to do and what as a combined entity they do these days. Where they cival rights orginizations like the NAACP? Someone knowledgable on the Rainbow/PUSH should expand the article. --Cab88 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to better explain.. 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto Peer Review

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Clear language usage, easily understandable read.  At that, it was also a most enjoyable and interesting read for me, personally.
:2. Factually accurate?: Article is sourced to (9) good sources, all look like they satisfy WP:RS, and are formatted with WP:CIT.  Nice.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Foundation, Functions of organization, Goals, Merger are all good explanations.  Going forward towards your next WP:PR though, please expand on that last bit where you mention criticism in the Merger section - if there are enough WP:RS sources for this, might be better off in its own small subsection.  Also, add some more commentary on contemporary notable actions of the organization.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Article does appear to be worded in neutrally phrased syntax and language.
:5. Article stability? No talk page incivility that I can see looking back.  No edit warring going back (3) months in edit history.
:6. Images?: 2 tasteful images, one is cc and the other is public domain.  Nice.  I'd just suggest if you get a moment to transwiki them both to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used across projects.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
— Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: WP:NPOV does not say remove one extreme point of view and describe it as unreliable.  It says include all sides.  Removing his points is irresponsible.  Even worse is all the points that were left in the article, but stripped of their citations.  Leave the refs in.  The proper thing to do is to find counterpoints and add them to the article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the source is unacceptable. We do not use unreliable, polemic radical right-wing (or radical left-wing) Web sites as sources, particularly ones run by with a demonstrated record of making things up. The site is usable only as a source for its own opinions. FCYTravis (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally stay out of the fray on political issues by sourcing from Time, Newsweek, U. S. News & World Report, New York Times, etc.  (see Jack Kemp or Jesse Jackson, Jr. for example).  I don't know who is right wing that counts as right wing and an WP:RS and who right wing and considered a nutjob.  Regardless, your edit seems haphazard to me.  Can you confirm that in places where you merely removed the citation and not the fact, you thought it through.  I am going to trust that if you say you did the remaining stuff is not going to be challenged as failing WP:ATT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is(at least in part necessarily) by design entirely susceptable to Manufacturing Consent-style propaganda. However, basically that system often keeps stuff "on the back pages", and there are a lot of sources like [[The Guardian], truthout or "specialist magazine" sources, so perhaps you can try search there.(keep in mind "talk page not discussion forum")88.159.79.223 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.discoverthenetworks.org 

message: Tried to point it out, but was reverted.88.159.79.223 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encarta reference is a tertiary source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rainbow/PUSH. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5kwrrPhGN?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557067/Jesse_Jackson.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557067/Jesse_Jackson.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829171723/http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/21/bp.00.html to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/21/bp.00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified