Talk:Death Penalty Information Center
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article Needs Serious Work[edit]
I stumbled upon this page this morning, and I was surprised to see the seriously ramshackle state of the article. The text was a mix of personal rants, misinformation, and nonsequiturs, all rife with substantial spelling and grammatical errors. I have deleted the majority of the crap, but the article needs some serious clean up to meet Wikipedia standards.
--74.228.64.159 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Dissenting[edit]
I desagree because all informations are sourced. 83.201.39.133 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
DPIC's website takes forever to connect![edit]
I have a problem. I keep trying to go to the Death Penalty Information Center's website shown here, but it takes FOREVER to connect! I keep refreshing the page, but it's too slow and takes forever! Something is wrong with the website! Can somebody please fix the DPIC website? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's not our job here. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
DPIC is suddenly knocked back to last week![edit]
Why is the Death Penalty Information Center's website suddenly knocked back to last week?! A few hours ago the website was working fine, but now it's suddenly nearly a week ago! Even the linked stories from February 14 up to today (February 19) don't exist anymore! Could somebody please fix the website? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Drupal already installed"?![edit]
Something's wrong with the DPIC database! Lately, the website is replaced with a message that says that "Drupal already installed"! The DPIC website seems to be down! When will it be fixed?! Here's the info: http://dev.deathpenaltyinfo.org/install.php --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"List of criticisms"[edit]
Why has the list of criticisms been removed? A statement has been made claiming the DPIC list is dishonest. This is misleading without a summary of the alleged dishonesty. Many people think it is a list of people who were guilty and released by error. It needs to be pointed out that Campbell isn't even claiming that in most cases. Ah well, I'll just put it back. -- Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The bullet points are not appropriate give the size and scope of the article. Moreover, not properly cited. User talk:dghavens 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. In the first place, what does size have to to with it? What point are you trying to make there? In the second place, it is given a full cite. I have given a direct link to Campbell's actual article, and all the bullet points use direct quotes from the article. What are you objecting to? Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- multiple people have been critical of your edits. Your edit crowds the DPIC article with one particular criticism, not a general criticism of DPIC. Moreover, your citation to the NY times article was original writing. If you want to expand on the point about the exonerations. Do it in prose/paragraph form, and I won't object. Bullets are inappropriate here and not commonly used in a stub article. User talk:dghavens 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1) MY citation to NY times? I haven't made one. If any such citation exists, some other editor added it. Get your facts straight before you go attacking "my" edits. 2) So you think it's too long for a short article? That's how articles grow. They start short, people expand them with new parts, and they get big. 3) You think it "crowds" the section on criticism? How about we make a new, separate section for the innocence list. Would you accept that? 4) You don't like bullet points, and prefer paragraphs? Fine, then put it in your preferred style. I can live with that. Don't just delete it. Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- a new section on the innocence claim does not seem worthy of a separate section. Are there other reliable sources discussing that issue? you are correct that the NY times cite wasn't your's. my apologies. The bullet points are not appropriate. Please do not use them. User talk:dghavens 23:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1) apology accepted. 2) If it's too long and crowds a section, then let's put it in a new one. 3) If you don't like the format, then by all means change it. Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- a new section on the innocence claim does not seem worthy of a separate section. Are there other reliable sources discussing that issue? you are correct that the NY times cite wasn't your's. my apologies. The bullet points are not appropriate. Please do not use them. User talk:dghavens 23:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1) MY citation to NY times? I haven't made one. If any such citation exists, some other editor added it. Get your facts straight before you go attacking "my" edits. 2) So you think it's too long for a short article? That's how articles grow. They start short, people expand them with new parts, and they get big. 3) You think it "crowds" the section on criticism? How about we make a new, separate section for the innocence list. Would you accept that? 4) You don't like bullet points, and prefer paragraphs? Fine, then put it in your preferred style. I can live with that. Don't just delete it. Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- multiple people have been critical of your edits. Your edit crowds the DPIC article with one particular criticism, not a general criticism of DPIC. Moreover, your citation to the NY times article was original writing. If you want to expand on the point about the exonerations. Do it in prose/paragraph form, and I won't object. Bullets are inappropriate here and not commonly used in a stub article. User talk:dghavens 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. In the first place, what does size have to to with it? What point are you trying to make there? In the second place, it is given a full cite. I have given a direct link to Campbell's actual article, and all the bullet points use direct quotes from the article. What are you objecting to? Pete 80.194.30.137 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The bullet points are not appropriate give the size and scope of the article. Moreover, not properly cited. User talk:dghavens 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I know this is an old conversation, but I feel the need to point out that any bullet list of criticism would have been unacceptable as per MOS:LISTBULLET. Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)