Talk:Reality Check (program)

And one person keeps removing the criticism entirely. In order to settle things down a bit, a Reality Check response was added in the Criticism that hopefully will seem fair to everyone. Secondwhiteline 04:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits were changed because some of the phrases were of a particularly boosterish nature, particularly the arguments against the criticism within the criticism section - my feeling is that the criticism section is a separate beast, and that the rest of the RC article is where RC's point of view goes, UNLESS the phrasing before the Reality Check responses is changed to include something like "Reality Check members feel that...", something of that nature. Secondwhiteline 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits being deleted for no apparent reason: Seemingly acceptable edits made to the Criticism portion of this article have repeatedly been changed back t their previous form. Why is this? The edits simply do a better job at making this article more non-bias, and accurate. In addition, said edits keep the Criticism section from sounding like a the mad diatribe of a reality check "non-supporter." 24.29.66.145 04:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Under edits, the "minor" edit button was clicked accidentally when I added a .jpg of the RC logo. Just a quick note. Secondwhiteline 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

whats with the picture? a painting doesnt look like a logo at all, not to mention the nazi-related nature of the pic makes it seem like vandalism... Blueaster 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

i see weasle words...

Where I'm at (Rockland County, southern NY) we say youth-led, not teen-led, because we have a few preteens involved. I think it's fair to be inclusive of them, they do just as much for the movement as teens do. I changed "teen" to "youth" in a few places but left it in in a few more to emphasize that most RC members are teens. I also took out the 13-18 bit because there is no such requirement, at least not at the school level. This article should really be expanded further, it would do a lot for the credibility of the organization (as stupid as it is that people judge things by their Wikipedia articles, but it's true).


 * Wikipedia's here to document organizations, not legitimize them. If you mean we should include more information, fine, but this isn't a free advertising site.


 * True, but it sometimes unintentionally serves to de-legitimize organizations by not including enough information about them.

Somebody needs to remove the last paragraph. It's blatant advertising. 108.77.235.163 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)