Talk:National Center for Policy Analysis

2009 comment
I removed the specific mention of 'partial' funding in the lede, as there is a funding section which explicitly states that a minority of the organization's funding comes from industry - which would make this a 'partial' amount of a minor part of the funding. Emphasizing it clearly biases the article. 10:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs)

Conservative or not
I also removed the label 'conservative' from the lede, as the organization does not label itself conservative, and there is a section of this article devoted to 'other characterization' (itself suspect) that calls them conservative. Emphasizing this point, along with emphasizing 'health industry funding', is an NPOV violation. 09:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs)

The emphasis on the NCPA being "partially financed by the insurance industry" comes from the multiple cited reliable secondary sources. Apatens (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The description of the NCPA being a "conservative" think tank comes from the multiple cited reliable secondary sources.


 * I'm still wondering how its POV to identify a group's political orientation. Or where it gets its funding. Seems like the OP is trying to hide something rather than be neutral. PrBeacon (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick search using the www.ncpa.org internal search engine discloses numerous favorable references to "conservative" ideas and principles, including a November 12, 2010 press release headed "Conservative Think Tank Says Repeal of Health Reform Provisions Would Spur Growth". http://www.ncpa.org/media/conservative-think-tank-says-repeal-of-health-reform-provisions-would-spur-growth Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Not only are there 237 hits on Google News, there are also 243 hits in the New York Times.

If you look at the actual hits, they're important stories. NCPA has been vocal in the health care debate.

For that reason, when people read about them in the newspapers, and search Google to find out more about them, it's useful to have a good Wikipedia article explaining where they're coming from -- and in particular where their money is coming from.

The only important thing is that we can't let the NCPA create their own page, in violation of WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Ncpa 2009 should realize that s/he's violating WP rules. If Ncpa 2009 or someone from NCPA under a different name tries to edit it, at best it will simply be reverted, and at worst they'll get some embarrassing negative publicity. --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)