Talk:Centre for Social Justice

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non neutrality

Not sure that this page is particularly neutral - highlights the organisation's "credibility" and states that the CSJ Alliance provides "an expert voice". These points would be better supported by a citation from outside the CSJ. Voxtrot (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads like self promotion. And no one should use the word "independent" without saying independent of *what*.81.131.11.254 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word 'independent' - but this article has a lot of problems. Looking through the edit history it has been *extensively* edited by accounts associated with the CSJ in an attempt to present this think tank as neutral rather than a mouthpiece of right wing MPs and lobbyists. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.49.168.65 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Paul.at.CSJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Centreforsocialjustice The last two at least are incredibly transparent. What is the usual action when the integrity of a page is compromised like this? Casiotone^talk 08:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the fluff (which was most of the article). At this point nothing should be added that does not cite an independent secondary reliable source. There has been a lot of conflict of interest editing going on in this article and it needs to stop. SQGibbon (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centre for Social Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]