Talk:Center for the Study of Popular Culture
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
editI have pruned this drastically because the existing article was copied verbatim from this outfit's website and was both partisan and, very likely, an infringement of copyright. I hope the author will add more information, as long as it is in line with wikipedia policies regarding copyright and 'neutral point of view' WP:NPOV. Mattley 20:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Guilty as described above. I had saved a rough draft from the CSPC website & was still editing simultaneously with Mattley. I have reviewed the wikipedia submission guides again, recently. Since then, I have made two very slight changes to some phrases in the "pruned" article and added the -See Also- section. Indeed, everyone is influenced by their convictions, making it difficult to write objectively in line with WP:NPOV This is only my second article & my first regarding politics. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I will endevor to remain neutral in future articles and edits. Cheers, --Dymaxion 20:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
-The written article talks about a study. -It criticizes the study's methods. -It does not say what the study's results were.
That seems unfair at least, and at most a lack of information. If someone is familiar with the study, could that person please add its results? --Zaorish 13:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This article should be deleted. It contains nothing of substance and is another piece of free advertising for a group that operates out of one office in Los Angeles with three or four blogging sites. Wikipedia now has an article on Horowitz, one on his frontpage blog (from which I deleted the banner yesterday-- genuine free advertising), this nothing burger "article" and god knows what else. What's needed is one good article covering all the bases. What's going on now is an abuse of Wikpedia. It should be paid advertising, and worst of all, his acolytes allow no critiques of the content of what they're doing on any Wikipedia pages. skywriter 12:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)