Jump to content

Talk:Christic Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three Mile Island victims represented?

[edit]

I see no citation on victims of TMI in the article. Indeed, the consensus is that TMI had zero victims. After three university studies, four external organizations studying the subject, no victims were ever located, cancer rates the same as the national average and the only thing unusual in the area is a higher radon level than in other areas. Something notable due to the intense scrutiny of the area since the TMI accident. It's also something less studied, but well established throughout central and western Pennsylvania, high radon levels from the earth.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

[edit]

This article probably needs a re-write with objective sources. Almost all its sources are from Christic Institute itself. One area it shows is its discussion of the Iran-Contra lawsuit. According to this article: "...the case was dismissed by Federal Judge James Lawrence King. A Nixon appointee, King was later discovered to have been a Member of the Board of Directors of organized-crime accountant Meyer Lansky's Miami National Bank as well as a legal consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency." Not only is this a very bizarre point to make [Wasn't Lansky dead by that point? And what is unusual about a Federal judge being appointed by a president?], but far from being due to any CIA influence, that suit was dismissed because their witness list largely consisted of people who were "dead, unwilling to testify, [or had] fountains of contradictory information or at best one person removed from the facts they were describing" (according to a 3/17/89 article in the NY Times). That particular lawsuit was later used as a example of frivolous suits (to limit them).Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not how we use the neutrality tag. Please stop holding articles hostage to your POV. You need to point to a specific problem that can be addressed. Instead, you are going from article to article claiming that they need to be rewritten for some nebulous reason that you are never able to specify. That's called holding an article hostage. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say the reason is "nebulous" when I specifically mentioned the issue is the article sources and I specifically noted the problem with one of its statements? Fine, I will edit the portion I noted above (about the Iran-Contra lawsuit) and put it in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rja13ww33. I have reworked the section with additional reliable sources. Daniel Sheehan, the Christic Institute, and Romero Institute might be reliable sources for the most trivial details; however, they are not reliable sources for any analysis whatsoever regarding Avirgan v. Hull or pretty much any of their lawsuits or causes. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that can be used for this and I have added some to what Rja13ww33 inserted previously. - Location (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christic Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christic Institute. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused references

[edit]

The article included a reference section, but these references were not cited anywhere in the article, so that it is impossible to say which parts of the article are supported by which references. I have therefore removed these, but leave a copy here in case someone is able to figure out a use for them.

  • "Christic is charged with abusing tax-exempt status." National Catholic Reporter. 1992 vol. 28, no.28:6.
  • "Costa Rican investigation backs Christic charges." National Catholic Reporter. 1990 vol. 26, no.14:5.
  • "La Penca and beyond - 1984 bombing in Nicaragua" at a press conference held by Edén Pastora - Editorial. The Progressive, June, 1996.
  • A Brief History, The New Paradigm Institute. 4 February 2005 (Archived at Wayback Machine)

Rgr09 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

501 status

[edit]

The article originally stated that the IRS revoked the Christic Institute's 501(c)(3) status and cited two sources for this claim:

The IRS stripped the Institute of its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status after claiming the suit was politically motivated.[1][2]

Inside the Shadow Government is a June 1988 reprinting of the Institute's final version of their "Plaintiff's declaration" for Avirgan v. Hull. It says nothing about CI's tax status. I have not seen the Oakland Tribune article by Brenda Payton, but judging by the date (prior to the suit's dismissal), I doubt there is anything in there either. According to a 1996 publication, as of 1993 the Institute was still a 501(c)(3) organization.[3]Rgr09 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed tax status errorRgr09 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed broken reference Rgr09 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Christic Institute, Inside the Shadow Government. Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1988. Print.
  2. ^ Payton, Brenda. "Is U.S. Backing Contras with Drug Funds?" Oakland Tribune, April 4, 1988.
  3. ^ Wilcox, Derk Arend (1996). The left guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Economics America. p. 114.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christic_Institute&oldid=1206681582"