Talk:Committee to Protect Journalists

message: Ethopia crisis is different.It should come in an Ethopia article  .CPJ just issues statements  .It has nothing to do with the problems in Ethopia and hence removing the Ethopia section.193.61.107.150 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethopia 

message: :Image:CPJ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CPJ.jpg

message: I just removed some text from this section because it seems to be WP:COATRACK overspill from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.
More generally, though, this section seems to rely heavily on the CPJ site. Since CPJ seems to highlight a number of cases on its site each day, what is the rationale for choosing a select few for inclusion in this section? --FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm guilty of putting one or two of those up there for things I happened to be working on, but as you point out, the number is too large to reasonably keep up with, and so I stopped. It's fine with me if you want to remove them. It might be worth at some point creating a break-out list of journalists who CPJ has issued alerts on behalf of--this strikes me as both interesting and notable, as their press releases seem to get a lot of attention elsewhere. But it's too unwieldly to include them here, unless CPJ announces a short list of "priority cases" that we could focus on. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Removed. -- Khazar (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Active engagements

message: ...missing. Sure there is enough controversial facts to find and add, so it's strange the section is not written yet.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking for controversial facts to find and add would be a bit of a strange way to approach it. Other than the article saying that one magazine described it as "Journalism's Red Cross", which I suppose is praise of sorts, there isn't any praise either. The article certainly lacks a reception section to reflect the various views about the organization that have been published by reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "First they came for Gawker, but I did not speak up, because we take Thiel Foundation money." 173.228.106.171 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section