Talk:The Marshall Project

Better sourcing is needed to describe this organization as an "advocacy group" in the lead of the article, using Wikivoice is inappropriate
The only source in the article that describes The Marshall Project as an "advocacy group" comes from a single sentence in a psychotherapy book. More reliable sources are needed in the body of the article in order to state this in the lead using Wikivoice. Please add more sources before removing the citation needed tag in order to improve the article with factually correct information. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Have updated the language to reflect the body of the article. Without more sources, this cannot be stated in Wikivoice. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you related to the editor Editor120522? The overlapping timing and the contents being edited suggested possibly related. Also, are you associated with The Marshall Project in anyway? Graywalls (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not related to that editor, and I am not related to The Marshall Project.
 * More sources are needed, it is that simple.
 * As I mentioned on your article talk page, we can't use Wikivoice without better sourcing, especially if this is going to be in the lead. I don't personally disagree with the claim that they are an advocacy group, but we can't decide to label them as such without other more reliable journalistic sources describing The Marshall Project as such.
 * With more sources, it is no problem to call them an advocacy group. But more sources are definitely needed if this is going to remain in the lead. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Attribution is not needed when we're using a reliable source. You seem unusually familiar for someone with just 20 edits. In any case, it's not about "more sources". We're not trying to establish the notability of the article subject. Graywalls (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your one source is a book about psychotherapy (a single sentence descriptor), it is not The New York Times or Wall Street Journal or Washington Post calling them an advocacy group, or saying that they are known as such.
 * You need better sourcing to definitively state that they are known as an advocacy group.
 * And yes, I have been lurking for a long time here. And yes, the IP address rotates and changes. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV
Wikipedia articles are expected to be primarily based on secondary sources. The number of times the full name of the organization is repeated is absurd as well as the proportion of contents based on its own website. The number of times the company's own website is used as references is out of line. WP:IPR suggests possible remnants of public relations activity. "The Marshall Project" all in all appears FORTY EIGHT times all together, including in the citation. The article was at one point was even directly edited upon by a user named Marshallstaff which strongly suggests public relations editing. Until this is resolved, the tags should remain. Graywalls (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thank you for taking this on. For an organization that publishes frequently, has won substantial awards, and has had former New York Times editors working for them, I'm surprised there isn't more coverage about The Marshall Project, and that it seems difficult to find other reliable sources to fill in the gaps about who they are and what they write about. Obviously, primary sources should be used minimally. 65.60.165.198 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)