Talk:Campus Watch

message: I added the cleanup tag to this article since it is currently just a list of quotes.  It needs to be brought together into a coherent whole that describes its origins (founders and goals), the charges that Campus Watch made and the result criticism and response.  It would also be interesting to know what state of activity there is with this group.  --70.48.240.217 00:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Suggestions

message: Daniel Pipes (Campus Watch founder) and Michael Massing discussing Campus Watch in the New York Review of Books:
* Letter & Reply: CAMPUS WATCH, Volume 53, Number 12 · July 13, 2006
--70.48.71.226 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Review of Books discussion

message: 'In fact, its posts of scholars are considered by Campus Watch to be rigorous and accurate, and consist mainly of reporting and publicizing than any sort of editorializing.'
I.e. Campus Watch considers its own posts to be rigorous and accurate.
Does one have to gloss what views Campus Watch entertains about its own views?Nishidani 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Joel, you consider your works worthy of someone's graduate research time. Bigleaguer 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dodger of Zion, I think there is room in the "Big Tent" to not write a negative article (even if you don't personally like CW).  If you insist on writing a critical article, then its only fair that the other side be given a chance to reply to the critiques.  Bigleaguer 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bigleaguer, your edits have many faults and are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I urge you to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelies and policies and/or request comments on your editing before making any further controversial/disputed edits or reverts to this article. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who writes this stuff?

message: Does anyone know if Campus Watch is a non profit organization? —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the NPO infobox, since Campus Watch is a project of the NPO Middle East Fourm.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non profit organization

message: We currently mention three criticisms of CW, but two date back to 2002 and seem embarrassingly outdated, not to mention fully of silly/malicious errors.
Can anyone find any more recent criticisms that meet Wikipedia's standards? Please? CWC 07:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you believe the information is no longer correct? --Neon white (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, because both focus too much on the dossiers that CW (wisely) dropped in Fall 2002. CWC 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have a source for the 'dropping' of the dossiers? if so it can probably be included to balance the article. --neonwhite  user page talk 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need non-obsolete criticism 

message: I requested semi-protection a few days ago, but the response was that the problem was not yet bad enough. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I requested it not long ago and got the same response. It's fair but annoying seen as this seems to be either a single person using different ips and a single perpose group. --neonwhite  user page talk 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is time to make another request. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't think it will be seen as enough, the last attempts were a month apart but you can try. Annoying as the seem to be quite obviously either the same person using multiple IPs or person with a COI as they trace to different ISPs. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on IP edits

message: Haven't looked at this article in years. But it seems odd and inappropriate that the criticism section is larger than the ordinary descriptive content. I suggest that it be cut back: first, by paraphrasing key points rather than giving block quotes, and second, by cutting down to only the most important criticisms, as needed. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Campus Watch. 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/20080308211346/http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf to http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
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) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified