Talk:Arkansas Project

message: While the malevolent intentions and existence of the "Arkansas Project" are proven and established, they are still a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Clinton-haters (and there are many). Granted that, the langugage in this article (unrestrained use of the word "attack") compromises the integrity of the information presented. As is, I don't think it's in line with NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dawsong (talk • contribs). (19 December 2005)
:Excuse me for asking what might seem like an impertenent question, but if the use of the word "attack" is accurate in describing the Arkansas Project, how is that NPOV? Just because the facts happen to match one side of an argument does not mean that the facts are NPOV... it just means the other side of the argument is out of step with the facts. See Evolution for more examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: If there was an actual "Arkansas Project" there should be better evidence than a Washignton Post article based on anonymous sources like, "well-placed sources have told The Post that..." and "[s]everal sources at the Spectator, all of whom asked for anonymity, said..." Even the silly title sounds like a government operation. Isn't there any better evidence of this project than the establishment Post's anonymous sources?
: I added in the book citation of David Brock who references the meetings, funding, and key players. C56C 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a direct source by someone there (Blinded by the Right page 219) that says everything the Washington Post article does. Your POV campaign is tiresome, your misrepresented the "Several sources at the Spectator, all of whom asked for anonymity" and ignored the people who were named and quoted in the article. C56C 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Prove it. C56C 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous Sources are a poor reference

message: This article concerns living persons and is substandard for Wikipedia. David Brock is a primary source for this "Arkansas Project" yet he has disavowed his own writings. He has been called "a liar" by both the left and the right from Slate to Front Page.
:Right and left? Those are both conservative sources, which obvious will be defensive about this claims. Funny, the slate page that links to the "lies" is a dead link. None of them question any of the elements cited in this article. C56C 19:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, you are misrepresenting the few anonymous sources used by the Washington Post. Anyway I removed them and cited them with better sources any way so you complaints on that are hollow. Pleas see this CNN article about Scaife's foundations admitting this. (they call it an "very open conspiracy" with the funding posted at scaife.org) C56C 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are wrong. 1) Brock's writings are WP:RS for what he witnessed and 2) the NY Times, Washington Post, and all the other sources back those. Also don't write a paragraph piece attacking Brock on this article criticism of brock and his biography/background goes on his article. C56C 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What a joke the slate article contains Brock's rebuttal at the bottom, and the Front Page article is written by the operator of Front page, David Horowitz, who has a questionable past and questionable motivations. According to the wikipedia article Horowitz is a writer for NewsMax, the conservative website ran by Christopher Ruddy. You have not justified removing a citation by someone who worked at the Spectator who discusses the Spectators' role in this. C56C 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must provide a WP:RS for the Washington Post and not an article quoting anonymous sources. Brock has rejected his own writings he is not a WP:RS References to the self-discredited Brock should all be removed. Thomist 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Washington Post is a WP:RS, and Brock is a WP:RS for what Brock witnessed. Funny, Brock's work (Blinded by the Right) is the source you use to say he is "self-discrediting." So its okay to cite the work against Brock, but not about that he saw ragrding the project backed up by mainstream media articles? C56C 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be cleaned up or removed

message: There are no WP:RS provided to link Vincent Foster reports and Christopher Ruddy to the "Arkansas Project" conspiracy theory. What is the WP:RS source that Mr. Ruddy was part of the "Arkansas Project?" Disparaging remarks about living persons should have a high quality source as evidence or they must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomist (talk • contribs) 
Are you kidding? Read the sources:
The first public indication of a falling-out between Scaife and the Spectator followed the 1997 publication of "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation." This book, by Christopher Ruddy, a reporter Scaife had hired to write for his Pennsylvania newspaper, sought to poke holes in the official investigations of Foster's death.
The Spectator's review of the book, by John Corry, a former New York Times reporter, described Ruddy as "a very heavy breather" whose book contained "very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations."
Soon after Corry's review was published in late November 1997, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media – a conservative critic who has received about $2 million from Scaife since 1977 – reported in his newsletter that Scaife had called Tyrrell to say he was cutting him off.
Another article about Ruddy and the project. One from Media Matters One from CNN  One from Salon. C56C 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories removed

message: The Mark A Smith that the link goes to seems to be a different individual, so I am removing the link unless someone wants to make a page for this billionaire. -- User:RWest 14:07 3 August 2007
:The original name that was in that position was Richard Scaife, which would match not only the sources but the context of the rest of the article as well. If you look at the rest of the history within August someone has changed the names multiple times. I'm gonna change it back to scaife, or just press undo back to the 29th May article as it looks like the other guys were just vandalizing the page.--Evud 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark A Smith

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arkansas Project. 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://web.archive.org/web/20061002233558/http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp to http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arkansas Project. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110725110417/http://old.mediatransparency.org/issue.php?issueID=4 to http://old.mediatransparency.org/issue.php?issueID=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127210002/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04855837.asp to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04855837.asp
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) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified