Talk:USA Next

NPOV?

I have my doubts about the neutrality of this article, as I see a section full of negative commentary labeled "Criticism", but no similar section for positive commentary. Is there no positive commentary on this organization, or rebuttal of the negative, even from its own sources? F117-A 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of the most blatantly non-NPOV articles I've seen on WikiPedia that has not been officially challenged. How does one go about having this thing "branded" as "non-neutral?" B. Polhemus 18:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not balanced. I would like to see information from other sources, as well as the pros of this organization. There is more than one point of view on all things.Whozis (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adding a NPOV template now. --Anoma lee (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The AARP is a very powerful, politically liberal organization that could be threatened if USA Next were allowed to grow. It would not be surprising to see every attempt made to stop it.

Unfortunately I think AARP has apparently won, as attempts to open the USA Next webpage are now met with Invalid Host, and email to their previous address is not being answered. Some of us will now have to search for another alternative to the AARP's liberal lobby organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassayampa Slim (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Additionally, the Swift Boat Campaign is referred to as "infamous" and used to smear an advertising agency by association, which in turn is being used as a negative association to the article's subject. Certainly, that reference should be removed and this article is not objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.10.134.170 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. When the Center for American Progress is used as a source, you know you have a biased article. I totally discount this entire description and will do my own research elsewhere. John G 10/26/2010

I had trouble finding neutral sources. I did find a criticism on the Right and some mild support or neutrality from Christianity Today.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USA Next. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060428080307/http://www.usanext.org:80/ to http://www.usanext.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)