Talk:Newsmax/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Office action

Although I did not protect this article myself and do not speak from an official position, I will do my best to address the questions that have previously been raised about this Office action.

The article was protected following serious concerns that it was written far outside Wikipedia policies, particularly Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Most notably, there were various statements concerning such things as "conspiracy theories" and "distribution of false information", and over half the article was given over to a section entitled "Misinformation". Dannyisme, a respected Wikipedian and Foundation employee, decided that it was so far outside policy that it would be much simpler to simply start over. To that end, the article was stripped of most of its content and the {{reset}} template applied. This means that, temporarily, very new users may not edit this article. However, most registered users are free to edit. If you would like to edit this article yourself, you just need a registered account with a few days and edits. This unfortunate precaution is taken to prevent the good-faith addition of information that cannot be verified, and to mitigate possible opportunism from malicious users. This protection is temporary and will hopefully be lifted at some point in the near future.

Note, again, that I do not speak from an official position, and that this message is intended to be helpful rather than official. Remember that this talk page exists to discuss the article and coordinate collaboration; if you would like to discuss Office actions, please see Wikipedia talk:Office actions. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, Office Action seems like a rather extreme response. Certainly the Misinformation section should have been tagged as disputed and unsourced, if indeed it was. However, I've looked at the revision with oldid 48758172. It seems to use authoritative sources, and those references that I've read, check out. I'll admit that it was POV (should have mentioned any rebuttals to "misinformation" charges), but I think that could have been fixed with a tag and a call to other editors' attention. If NewsMax had been threatening legal action, then I could see it being a bit different, but I think documented misinformation from a news site is an important topic to cover. Seahen 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article text

The following material has been supplied to Wikipedia as potentially helpful source material from Newsmax.--BradPatrick 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NewsMax Media, Inc. was founded in September of 1998 by journalist and author, Christopher Ruddy, who serves as its President, CEO and Editor.

NewsMax Media, Inc. is jointly owned by Christopher Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is a member of Forbes 400 Richest Americans [1] and the Financial Times 2005 list of the world 25 most influential billionaires. [2]

NewsMax Media’s international advisory board includes Lord William Rees-Mogg, former editor of the Times of London and former vice chair of the BBC; noted journalist Arnaud deBorchgrave; Jeff Cunningham, former publisher of Forbes; and former Sec. of State Alexander M. Haig Jr.. A founding board member of NewsMax, now deceased, was Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NewsMax Media is the parent company of a news Web site, www.newsmax.com, advertised as “America’s News Page,” and a monthly magazine, called NewsMax Magazine, which provide in-depth and comprehensive news, politics and commentary with a conservative perspective. NewsMax.com attracts more than 2 million unique visitors monthly to the Web site, as tracked by Nielsen and Google Analytics. Alexa, a search engine with traffic rankings and reviews, ranks NewsMax.com as one of the top news sites in the world — among the top 2,000 large web sites worldwide. [3] Nielsen, the respected Web ratings agency has ranked NewsMax among the top tier of news Web sites, including MSNBC, CNN and BBC. In 2003 Nielsen identified NewsMax as one of the fastest growing sites on the web. [4] Talkers Magazine cites NewsMax.com as being the number one resource for many national radio and television talk show hosts seeking story and guest ideas. NewsMax Magazine NewsMax Magazine was first published in January of 2001 and is the print companion for the NewsMax.com Web site. The magazine reports on political, economic, cultural trends as well as cutting-edge technology and breaking health and science news.

During the year 2005 NewsMax Magazine won membership in the leading magazine-industry watchdog organization, the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The ABC provides independent audits of print circulation, readership and Web site activity.

According to the audit, NewsMax Magazine has reached an average monthly paid circulation of over 102,695. NewsMax Magazine estimates this paid circulation gives it an estimated monthly readership in excess of 400,000 persons each month – making it the largest read independent news monthly with a conservative perspective.

Also during 2005 NewsMax Magazine garnished a Silver Eddie award in the News/Commentary category of the 2005 Eddies, the prestigious journalism awards presented by Folio magazine in New York City.

“This Silver Eddie award, won against impressive competition, is recognition that NewsMax Magazine has become a major player in the news and commentary field of magazine journalism,” Ruddy said.

NewsMax Magazine publishes cutting-edge investigative reports generated by a team of distinguished and award-winning journalists.

Columnists for NewsMax.com and NewsMax Magazine have crossed the spectrum of political thought, and have included Thomas Sowell, Hillary Clinton, Dick Morris, John Stossel, Dick Morris, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Reagan, Ed Koch, Dr. James Hirsen, Carl Limbacher, Jr., David Limbaugh, as well as a myriad of other eminent commentators.

NewsMax Media also publishes several newsletters in the health and finance arenas, including its monthly Financial Intelligence Report. Dr. Russell Blaylock edits NewsMax’s monthly, The Blaylock Wellness Report, with a focus on health, wellness and nutrition.

NewsMax Media, Inc. is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Fla., with a news bureau in Washington and other staff located in New York and California. Currently, the company employs approximately 70 people.

References

NewsMax Tops Conservative Media [5]
Former Forbes Publisher Joins NewsMax [6]
ConWebWatch critiques NewsMax from a liberal perspective [7]
Featured news provider on ConservativeUSA.com, "The Conservative Activist's Home Page"
Hoover's describes NewsMax's content as "news with a conservative slant" (profile, financial reports).

External links

Official home page
- Information on NewsMax Magazine [8]
- Information on Blaylock Wellness Report [9]

Discussion on information above

That's nice But without an author we can't use it under the GFDL unless it is being relesed into the public domain.Geni 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

noted journalist Arnaud deBorchgrave

according to who?

which provide in-depth and comprehensive news, politics and commentary with a conservative perspective

WP:NOR

Nielsen, the respected Web ratings agency

Respected according to who?

Talkers Magazine cites NewsMax.com as being the number one resource for many national radio and television talk show hosts seeking story and guest ideas.

Many. Weasel words

leading magazine-industry watchdog organization]

Evidence it is the leading one.

NewsMax Magazine publishes cutting-edge investigative reports generated by a team of distinguished and award-winning journalists.

Source?

All in all uses newsmax as a source about itself far too much and is massively POV. More NPOV than Paula pradines’s previos versions though. On balance we are probably going to have to put this together ourselves.Geni 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you about the lack of NPOV and verifiability, but maybe it is something to start checking from? --AlisonW 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really it has POV as it's core theam so starting from scratch would probably be less effort.Geni 22:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I did wonder about User:Seahen's comment above this 'input' and wondered whether there might be a connection ... --AlisonW 22:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both this and the revision in question are very POV, but they're POV in opposite directions. Maybe we could merge the latter with the re-worded former, eliminating the weasel and peacock words and making other language changes, and then have something approaching a thorough, NPOV article. Seahen 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Article location

Should it be here, or at NewsMax Media? With all appropriate redirects, the latter would make more sense to me, as it's the umbrella that covers both the website and the magazine. --Michael Snow 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Triple the articles? I don't know that one or the other requires its own page.--BradPatrick 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not three separate articles, certainly not at this stage. I just mean that because NewsMax Media is the parent entity, in terms of naming conventions it's a better name for this article. --Michael Snow 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Audit Bureau of Circulation is not a "watch dog" by any definition of the term. It is a standard reference for negotiation of advertising rates.

Fair to readers?

Everyone knows half the stories on NewsMax.com are total crap, and and not noting this fact because of NPOV is a painfully absurd interpretation of NPOV. We don't give geocentrists and flat-earth groups NPOV-based credibility, and NewsMax.com doesn't deserve it just because they can throw up legal flak. NewsMax.com is about as close as you can get to an online tabloid, and that fact should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.181.145 (talk • contribs)

NewsMax.com can afford lawyers. Flat-earth groups can't. That's just what Wikipedia is. You might as well complain the sky is blue. - Xed 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more that there are no shortage of people lineing up to say that flat earth stuff is not sound. There are not many people prepared to say in print that newsmax is anything but a perfecting good news source.Geni 20:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What do lawyers have to do about it? If you can find a reliable source which criticizes Newsmax, then by all means include a discussion of that in the article. Don't buy Xed's FUD.--Jimbo Wales 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, saying the earth is flat isn't libel. Saying NewsMax is totally crap could be Nil Einne 12:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

News often is what those who pay for it want it to be. I find that simply knowing who starts a website or newsagency, and who pays for it to be enough information as to whether I believe what they print. And knowing those people's history is great to know. That kind of information is invaluable and I thank Wikipedia for being the only place to find that stuff out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjs52 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This reads like an advertisement for NewsMax. Given that there is substantial criticism of Newsmax, this makes a "Criticism of" section relevant and the lack of one misleading. By misleading I mean: the reader should expect that, if criticism of something is substantial, it would be noted in an encyclopedia article. Also, other controversial news organizations, including Fox News and, representing the left, the NY Times, include substantial sections dedicated to this. Also, I think the suggestion to take the article off and have it re-written is not bad, as this present version reads like an advertising pamphlet.------[User: DoctorJAC]

Subscribers?

The company also produces NewsMax magazine, which has 90,125 paid subscribers. ^{[citation needed]}

This is an unsubstantiated claim, and until it is sourced, does not belong in the article. Any reason not to remove it? Skywriter 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"The monthly newsletter, which costs $39 a year, has 16,000 subscribers and the Internet site has more than 1 million unique users a month, [Ken] Williams[ed. some employee of NewsMax] said." Smith, Stephanie CONSPIRACY WRITER'S WEB BUSINESS, NEWSLETTER ARE GROWING CONCERNS The Palm Beach Post October 11, 1999

"Marlin, who was the Conservative mayoral contender against Giuliani in 1993, said yesterday the quotes have been distributed to more than 800,000 subscribers to the conservative Web site, NewsMax.com, and "have taken on a life of their own."" Dicker, Fredrick GIULIANI'S WORDS USED AGAINST HIM New York Post March 30, 2005

"Last year, his [Hiram Lewis's] campaign e-mailed 250,000 subscribers of the conservative magazine NewsMax seeking donations." Stump, Jake Outside money fills Lewis war chest, Senatorial candidate s direct mail fundraising effort draws more than $1 million in donations Charleston Daily Mail (WV) May 4, 2006

"The Newsmax.com website now draws eight million monthly visitors and the magazine has over 240,000 paid readers." Brendan Nyhan, "News Quacks A conspiracy-mongering tabloid claims the mantle of Reagan.," The American Prospect Online, February 21, 2002.

"108,199 Active Paid Subscribers" Conrad Direct

"NewsMax has become a popular outlet for conservative readers seeking news and commentary. Its website, NewsMax.com, draws millions of viewers each month and its print publication, NewsMax Magazine, has a monthly readership of more than 250,000. " NewsMax And Random House Announce Book Deal April 5, 2002

"NewsMax Media serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site." Hoover's Factsheet

All over the map really. It is hard to say if they are talking about the magazine, the website, or mailing lists--but 250,000 has two sources if you want to go with it. Kotepho 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I used the existing link, deleted the hype, and accepted the claim of 100,000 subscribers, which is probably false but it accepts the proprieter's claim for now. Why is it probably false? Because magazines like it (on the right and left, and also non-political), each with a niche audience, have much smaller paid readership. Print subscriptions are declining across the board. Frontpage magazine has enough buzz to have a paid circulation of around 10,000. But we can not know with certainty. Advertisers, who are the key interest group in establishing accurate circulation figures, can not know in the absence of an ABC (Audit Burea of Circulation) accounting. That is what most media rely on to sell ads, and when they get in trouble for lying about circulation, like Newsday on Long Island, there are penalties for lying.

Because Ruddy took newsmax private after filing various claims with the SEC for several years, sources cited above can only speculate how many people drop by the site, and the true # of paid subscribers. Hype deleted because his competitors, National Review, FPM could also claim they are "the leading" blah blah. The politicians in the above estimates are especially suspect. Brendan Nyhan has no clue as to "paid readers", or, for that matter, website visits unless he has the keys to the backend of the website. Same with Hoover, etc-- they have to be accepting Ruddy's claim. Skywriter 09:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it some more, I am removing the subscriber claim because it is not verifiable. When Ruddy does an ABC audit, we can use that. There is no need for us to guess at subscription level or to accept unverifiable claim. Skywriter 10:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'subscriber' claim is simply the number of unique visitors who have responded to their online polls. Their advertising model is to post an inflammatory question in a bannor linked to a poll and requiring each voter to enter their e-mail address. Amcarroll32 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. They publish fake political polls, and then spam anyone who is fooled into thinking they were participating in a legitimate political poll from a legitimate news organization. If you try to unsubscribe, they spam you even more. I CANNOT understand why this fake news spam organization warrants a wiki entry? Is Wikipedia playing politics?

Article of questionable citation.

An article posted on March 30, 2006 ("FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation") cites a quote that FBI Director allegedly made to a House Appropriations Subcommittee. The article claims that "FBI Director Robert Mueller said this week that his agency busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S." by quoting Director Mueller, 'This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States.' This article can be found at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/30/223801.shtml

After looking at the official FBI release of Director Mueller's Congressional testimony, (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress06/mueller032806.htm) there is no confirmation that he made the above alleged statement. The official transcript cites "Southwest border", but does not mention Hezbollah at all.

An example of inaccurate reporting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) .

Excuse me

Why is the source for Ruddy's self-description of the site as having a conservative perspective being removed? That's an important piece of information, and it's best to get it in his own words. Certainly far better than stating it without a source at all, which is what the article was changed to.

The other changes are equally flawed. They seem to reflect a lack of knowledge about what is actually said in the cited articles and a lack of understanding about why the words used were chosen. --Michael Snow 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is to an advertising platform. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Ruddy's bragging that his is the leading blah blah is subject to challenge by his competitors, and his readers as stated earlier on this talk page. Wikipedia is not a platform for grand standing. It is an encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia policies on

Skywriter 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is to the source for his statement. Preceding the quote is the verb bills, which makes it quite clear that this is Ruddy's view and claims like "leading news site" are not to be taken at face value. Besides, leading could mean a lot of different things. In any case, how Ruddy describes the site for marketing purposes is perfectly appropriate to include in an encylopedia article about the site. --Michael Snow 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads like an advertisement as well. Placing the tag is fine, but don't make drastic changes without discussion and consensus. Prodego ^talk 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement, or the statement quoted reads like an advertisement? --Michael Snow 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The line that was edited to encyclopedic standards, and then reverted three times by you, also violating Wikipdia policy, is an advertisement, an ad pitch for subscribers. Skywriter 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in its full context, as I just explained, is not an advertisement. Are you not familiar with this kind of use of the verb bills? I also have not reverted three times, nor have I violated Wikipedia policy. --Michael Snow 17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Snow has not violated any policy. I am referring to the overall introduction, the quote should sound like an advertisement 'since it is an advertisement. Good luck working this out. Prodego ^talk 17:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In its current form the article states that "Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, describes Newsmax.com as "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective."" and it provides a source for Ruddy's statement. This is perfectly acceptable. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Finances: Net loss

Two things should be reinserted:

1) Financial records are available for 2000 and 2001. During these years NewsMax operated at a gross profit margin of 56.9% and 44.1%, but operating income losses of $4.3 and $4.1 million respectively resulted in net profits of -$4.1 and -$4.0 million.[10][11]

2) Also it would be nice to have the NewsMax's Goldstar-Hillary Clinton controversy, which was incorrect and started by NewsMax.[12] IUO42006 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The financial numbers are pretty meaningless without some context. Is there any coverage that might provide this? Since apparently the company never went public, I don't know if there are forecasts or analyses about the company's value or potential for profitability available or not. Also, did the Gold Star Mothers thing get picked up anywhere other than Snopes debunking it? --Michael Snow 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The numbers are helpful and the stories appears in many places. Here it is from the goldstar mom's webpage[13]. But you can search through the 1000+ google hits.

Adv tag

I removed it. I can't imagine how the article could be seen as an advert... but maybe it was added on an earlier version? Anyway... if there is a problem, let me know. ---J.S (t|c) 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on 'Articles of Note'

I've moved the following comment here because it is highly POV, incorrectly sourced and poorly written:

These gaffes have lead many other organizations to accuse NewsMax of practicing Yellow journalism [14] it has received harsh criticism from the mainstream media for publishing articles that border on the sensationalistic and, often ignore political correctness. Along with criticism of it’s numerous published factually flawed articles.

The web page cited in the paragraph refers to the Senator Santorum-U2 concert item, and does not support the sentence it follows. If the paragraph can be supported by reliable sources, it still needs to be rewritten before putting it back in the article. -- Donald Albury 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Headquarters can't be a P.O. Box

The headquarters information in the infobox is listed as a P.O. Box. A PO Box can serve as a mailing address, but not as a headquarters. :) I'll look around for more information on where it's physically located, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a buncha "reporters" working from home. Bsheppard 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the State of Florida, NewsMax's corporate office is at 560 Village Blvd Ste 120, West Palm Beach FL 33409. I based this information off of a company named NewsMax Media, Inc (not LLC as the article gives), and whose director is listed as Christopher Ruddy. According to documents available at that link, NewsMax.Com, Inc changed its name to NewsMax Media, Inc in September 2001. I will update the infobox to show the address and corporate status. Wyv 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:A-logo4.gif

I found Image:A-logo4.gif and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A-logo4.gif

Image:A-logo4.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Source and rationale for logo added

Just FYI... Figured replying to a bot wouldn't be useful. Wyv 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why a wiki article for a spammer?

I'm getting spammed by these NewsMax people and can't get unsubscribed. And, yes, it is definitely a spam behavior pattern: they are using my Google ID for newsgroups. There are spammers all around, but they don't have wikipedia articles describing them as legitimate businesses. I would like to put a warning in the article. User:Kcrossle --70.101.16.107 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Newsmax is an insidious spam engine, nothing more. I can't understand why it even warrants a Wiki entry, unless it is an entry about notorious sources of unsolicited email, in violation of the Canned Spam Act. Try to unsubscribe. Just try.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.107.104 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsmax and SPAM

What is Wikipedia's policy on advertising for a known spammer? (If you don't think newsmax is a spammer, I suggest you take one of their online polls, using your real email address). Or just enter your email address in the "News Alerts" box. Wait a couple days, then get back to me. {{db-spam}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.107.104 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2008

Hi. I'm not sure if this is an open question or if you're specifically addressing somebody. :) I've neutralized the speedy tag, as this talkpage does not qualify. The article itself doesn't either. Since it has previously survived AfD, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, please consider registering an account and launching a second AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Newsmax as "Source" for article on Newsmax

Most of the so-called sources for this advertisement come from Newsmax itself. The lack of third party citations proves that Newsmax isn't itself newsworthy. Newsmax sources should be deleted, and this article should be deleted for lack of third party references. Follow your own policies, Wikipedians.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.107.104 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pundits

One of the Pundits listed, Steve Farrell, leads to the wrong person. The bio of the person is listed at newsmax, at: http://www.newsmax.com/farrell/bio/ 204.113.200.149 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Still a disgrace after three years

So when is this dispute going to be resolved? I've seen Wikipedia articles removed for much less. Blatant advertising for a right-wing group written by the right-wing group themselves. This is disgraceful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.221.122 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should other wikipedia articles be removed because they are written by left-wing groups? Lets not get dramatic here. --207.225.33.139 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia articles written by left-wing groups solely to advertise for those left-wing groups should be removed.74.89.78.187 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite/Separate based on sources?

I came here to verify this company after seeing a scam-like commercial on TV and to be honest there isn't much real information in this article to say either way. Looking over the sources it seems like a third of them are from sites hosted by or starting from it. Can this be rewritten to reduce and remove those circular sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.104.137 (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been tagged

There has been no explanation given as to the neutrality of the article. The tag should be removed until reasons are provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Crackermax

Thats right, these simple folks ain't nothing but a bunch of morally impoverished crackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.144.114 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Skilfull

This company is not stupid and clumsy. Their "Aftershock" marketing campaign is not shoddy crap. This organization is not ham-fisted. So I think this article should be attended to carefully and with real deliberation. (Aim twice; shoot once.) --BenTremblay (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)