Talk:National Priorities Project

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Why does this page have this warning banner?

"The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia."

What is the "tone"?

The only thing I can hypothesize is that this organization is "offensive" to someone because of its political leanings. The article is quite factual, and I think properly represents the organization.

I first learned of them today (which is why I checked with Wikipedia), and was turned off by this "banner," but read on. After doing so I stongly question why the banner was placed there, leading me to click on the "talk page" only to discover no one wrote anything to justify the banner.

I am admittedly a neophite to contributing to Wikipedia; however, if someone is going to place a discrediting banner such as this, a LITTLE explanation should be required don't you think?

Article takes perspective of the subject[edit]

I am not the originator of the warning banner, but I agree with it. Here is an example:

Since the start of the Iraq War, NPP has been the single source for showing the cost of the war for each state and 400 cities, towns and counties. Our Cost of War publications have been used extensively by virtually every major peace organization, hundreds of media outlets and tens of thousands of interested citizens.

An "auto-biography" not worthy of Wikipedia[edit]

This article is the group's advertisement for itself and needs a major overhaul to meet even the minimal standards for objectivity observed here on Wikipedia. From the use of the first person ("Our Cost of War publications..."), to the use of first names to identify organization officials ("Greg"), to the vague terms that reveal its strong liberal/progressive bias ("...a 'balanced budget amendment' that slashed the federal safety net"; "every major peace organization"), the piece reads from start to finish like a brochure written by an NPP intern.

When a group's priorities are so clear and unvaried (its Web site home page, as of this writing, includes such revelatory statements as "over 40 percent (of 2007 income tax receipts) went towards military spending, while education received just over 4 percent" and "the cost of keeping tax cuts for the wealthy"), it's reasonable to indicate to the casual reader that the group is committed to liberal/progressive advocacy. That doesn't change the validity or veracity of the group's findings, but it does clarify their motivation. Conservative think tanks identify themselves as such and advocate "individual liberty." Liberal and progressive think tanks seem more reluctant to accept those labels, but fine -- they advocate "social justice." A truly nonpartisan, balanced think tank would present multiple viewpoints on issues of the day; the National Priorities Project is consistent on the progressive side of every issue.

So, without wishing to open a fruitless tug-o-war over this entry, I have attempted a rewrite of the introduction that clarifies where the group stands. It could benefit from a stem-to-stern rewrite that properly establishes the group's position and significance in contemporary American political discourse, and perhaps someone with more time and interest could do that.

The group is engaged in a battle to influence policy in favor of its liberal/progressive agenda. That's its right. It does not, however, have unchallenged license to pervert the rules and goals of Wikipedia. —Simplemeasures (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no reliable sources for any information in article?[edit]

Heard about them just now in a local talk radio interview. This Wikipedia article has a link to their website, a broken link to thehill.com and one mention in a link to a CNN transcript. Not much of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://http://nationalpriorities.org/about/mission/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Blanchette (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]