Talk:Correct the Record

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hillary ClintonWikipedia:WikiProject Hillary ClintonTemplate:WikiProject Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing for past tense[edit]

User:Кукамонга has recently changed the wording of the descriptions of CTR to past tense. Is there any sourcing that shows that their efforts have stopped? I guess I would assume that they would have stopped after the election but it would be nice to know for sure. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered the same thing. It may have closed up shop, but oftentimes PACs simply transition or pivot to a similar cause. Either way, we need a source if we're going to say it is no longer active. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with putting it in past tense, but ridiculously POV edits such as these ("online intimidation", "pay anonymous tipsters" etc) just need to go. And yes, there are BLP issues here since they concern a living person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also that list of donors is original research based on a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Center for Responsive Politics is not a primary source; it's not original research.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other sources, this [[1]] mentions the Jeff Koon's donation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malware link claim. Some editors have said in edit summaries that the correctrecord url now leads to a site containing malware. In the infobox I have removed the code that makes it a live link. I'm not sure how this problem should be dealt with (if it actually does exist - I have not visited the url) but making it an inactive link seems the simplest thing to do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

I don't think this article is worded very neutral, almost like it was written by someone with a vendetta against Hillary, thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7724:B800:1512:AC26:A932:6EB3 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the facts are so damning that just reading them you believe you're reading a hit piece. 85.5.140.227 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astroturfing incorrectly used[edit]

It lists astroturfing under methods, however, the page used as a source does not mention astroturfing at all. Only via CTR handles. Astroturfing implies grassroots while its quite clear this is from the CTR organisation if they are using CTR twitter handles.

Listing contributors to the PAC[edit]

There is a bullet point list of "notable contributors" to the PAC, which is derived from the primary source OpenSecrets. This does not belong here unless it can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"respond to negative online narratives about Clinton"?[edit]

Any more detail on this? What does this even mean? Specifically, what are the meanings here of "respond to" and "negative online narratives"? Just taking out advertisements, or astroturfing on social media, or trying to make dank memes, or what? jp×g 🗯️ 05:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question. jp×g 🗯️ 05:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]