Talk:Center for Security Policy/Archive 1

POV problems, July 2016
There have been a number of POV problems with the content of this page, with repeated wholesale deletions of new and substantive text that leave an apparent stress on derogatory information. The derogatory information is important in describing controversies related to the Center for Security Policy, and while it captures a certain opinion about the organization, the repeated stress on conspiracy theories provides a misleading picture overall. I would like to be able to add new substantive information without having it deleted by those who are dedicated to presenting a derogatory POV about the subject. The Center for Security Policy has many influential friends as well as enemies. The page should not be so biased. How about if we agree on describing the organization's people and functions, and then devoting an entire section to "Allegations of conspiracy theories," rather than seeding the entire page with the allegations? Professor Mike (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11/15 revisions
Changes made to update, remove erroneous material and update. Also made alterations to add balance without removing criticism. Moved up list of awards and updated. A criticism section is now at the end of the piece as it is for similar think tanks. More needs to be done to update the Center's recent publications.

Untitled
While the CSP bills itself as non-partisan all of it's members are neocons. There should be something about that in the article. TitaniumDreads 03:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but since few if any members/commentators/pundits/public intellectuals publicly identify with the label, it's probably best that we say they have been characterized as such. --Impaciente 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the term "neocon" or neoconservative has much meaning. Do they say they want to use American power to promote their vision of democracy? If so, the Bill Clinton can be a "neocon"--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article got turned into a PR,
I have restored some of the old info and npoved some of the language.  Leafy plant  03:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a bit more on this. The contributions also had lots of spelling errors - it would be interesting to check if the IP corresponds to CSP or just an editor with a penchant for PR.JQ 06:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The 070821 entry on this radio show quotes a fascinating article by one Philip Atkinson, connected with CSP and some of its members, regretting that a democracy cannot solve the Iraq problem by the use of nuclear weapons, and that Bush should imitate Caesar and Augustus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CSPFlame.jpg
Image:CSPFlame.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Latma and the CSP
Caroline Glick says her group Latma is a "a public service, educational initiative funded from tax exempt donations through the Center for Security Policy in Washington where I serve as senior fellow for Middle East affairs." If so, the Glick/Latma production of the controversial We Con the World video should be mentioned in the article. Also, Glick's position that "We’re not trying to be fair and balanced, we’re trying to make a point,” might be notable. RomaC (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

IP Editor Rewriting Article
The changes in question are so substantial that it's only possible to address them en masse, apologies. Recently an IP editor has completely rewritten the article to remove material sourced to Georgetown University, The Nation, and Media Matters that identifies the CSP as a propagator of conspiracy theories, have inserted un-encyclopedic promotional language that appears to be directly lifted from the CSP's website, and have inserted unsourced, un-encyclopedic POV-pushing statements (that read like a Conservapedia article) such as "the Center's hard line views—especially on radical Islam—have caused it and the Center's founder and President, Frank Gaffney, Jr., to be reviled by the left." Should the IP editor's rewrite of the article ("Version A") be the current version or should the established version of the article ("Version B", here: ) be maintained as the basis for future edits and improvements? LavaBaron (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Version B - problems with the IP editor's rewrite are too numerous and substantial to broach except as summarized above. LavaBaron (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

These comments are not accurate. Criticism of CSP remains in the paragraphs you cited remain but several statements were based on sources that don't substantiate the text. It you want to include these statements, please add sources that support them. Moreover, the criticism section relies on advocacy websites, a left leaning site (Talking Points Memo) and a liberal news site (Huffington Post.) This is hardly "encyclopedic."

I have reverted this piece again with some small changes to see if I can win over Lavabaron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeke1999 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)