Talk:Government Accountability Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Government Accountability Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Relevance of Activities paragraphs about MacLean, Schrier, Snowden and Wasserstrom

As currently phrased, it’s not clear what the relevance of the paragraphs about MacLean, Schrier, Snowden and Wasserstrom has to the GAP’s activities, as the GAP’s involvement is not discussed. 66.44.117.112 (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an experienced editor, but I came to the talk page because of what you are saying. That entire paragraph seems like a summary of some major whistleblowers, but there is nothing that connects that to the subject of the article. I felt confused reading it, and did some quick poking. The only citations that really seem to be related to activities of the GAP would be 12 and 13, with the exception of the many articles about Drake, and those are just reporting on a press release stating that this org would support the legal defense of any whistleblowers for the 2020 election. A lot of the information in the citations also seems really negative about the GAP in ways that never made it into the article, and this honestly, at present, reads like a PR job for the GAP. Oblivnow (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]