Talk:Charles Edward Russell

message: This is bio of a notable man, but it is somehow clumsily wrtitten. It could use a major overhaul, rewriting all the shards of sentences taken from : http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArussellCE.htm
JoJan 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, somebody has an axe to grind...  Keep it classy, anonymous person! Carrite (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I really hate the way that things were "auto-footnoted" in this article. It makes things hard to read and edit. I'd like to go back through and strip all that stuff in favor of more conventional, readable, editable references, but it's probably more work than it's worth. I tweaked things around a little bit, but there is still a lot more work to be done on this piece. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Five years later, I cleaned out the horrific book templates at the end. Maybe in five more years I'll get to the rewrite! Carrite (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Its content is broad and general, bringing the article’s informational worth down significantly. The Wikipedia article fails to consider both big and small details about Russell’s life that were tremendously instrumental in his legacy. Despite this failure, the articles do possess similar qualities that make them valid.
It is strange that the Wikipedia article did not include this major detail due to the fact that most of Russell’s most controversial and infamous stories, were a direct result of his investigative journalism. The failure to insert this major detail into the Wikipedia article downplays the weight in which Russell’s written work pulled in society at that time.
Despite the effectiveness in which the article has in terms of informing the reader, some improvements could be made to the Wikipedia article. The footnotes are a mixture of credible sources like The Library of Congress and published books and others that are not so credible. Some footnotes include other Wikipedia articles that do not source at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.71 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty terrible article that needs a full re-do, I think we can agree on that. Works refs are now first rate, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of original article  

message: The reference in the text equating "yellow journalism" and "muckraking" as the same thing is wrong.
The definition given of muckracking is correct. The problem is in the definition of yellow journalism.
Per Britannica, yellow journalism is "he use of lurid features and sensationalized news in newspaper publishing to attract readers and increase circulation."https://www.britannica.com/topic/yellow-journalism
This should get fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow journalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Edward Russell. 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/20050911045755/http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/128/128p9.htm to http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1994/128/128p9.htm
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) 14:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified