Talk:New York Public Interest Research Group

Untitled
This article does not source any thing. and is very POV. All information is uncited.

Although parts were POV, it was previously pretty inaccurate. Not sure where you can source things like "has two main offices"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.145.225 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY I removed all unsourcesd uncited material from this article
This entire page did not ettempt to cite one single thing. IF somebody can bring it back, with reliable resources that would be great. As it stood, it was just free advertising for the group. (Very POV, written by PR staff no doubt). I WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS! ````Jimmihoffa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmihoffa (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why I made changes
Here is what was taken out of the article (again): "NYPIRG is New York's largest consumer protection and good government organization. Mission statement:"NYPIRG is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and advocacy organization established, directed and supported by New York State college and university students. NYPIRG’s staff of lawyers, researchers and organizers works with students and other citizens, developing citizenship skills and shaping public policy. Environmental preservation, consumer protection, higher education, government accountability and social justice are NYPIRG’s principal areas of concern." Membership acquired through the door is most effective to show politicians that they have been informed about an issue."

These statements are very POV and not cited. A Mission statement is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and therefore should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richprentice (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Name dropping Obama does nothing to tell us about the organization. He did not found or lead the organization so his involvement would be more appropriate in the Barack Obama ecyclopedia entry. Whatsmore, the reference is only an old blog that can't be found online- thus it is unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyhottrod (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is referenced by amNY which is a free daily newspaper circulated in New York City by Newsday. The article is definitely weak but all you are doing is taking referenced material off the table rather than adding anything of value to the article. Americasroof (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to consider the following: First off, I am not really too concerned with the fact that the source is not verifiable online, as I am sure that further research could identify a source for it somewhere. However, name dropping Obama does nothing to tell us about the organization. He did not found or lead the organization so his involvement would be more appropriate in the Barack Obama encyclopedia entry. For example, if Obama had worked for the Post Office would that be something that should be in an article about the Post Office? What if he had been a member of Amway- should that be mentioned in an Amway article? What if he drove a Chevy Nova? Should he be included in the entry about Chevy Nova's? While many are fond of Obama, name dropping trivial facts about him into encyclopedia articles is just boastful.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)jonnyhottrod