Talk:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The section on criticisms is not objective. Citing right-wing think tanks as critical of left-wing think tanks is not noteworthy. Its inclusion indicates that the author has a political agenda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.240.212 (talk • contribs)

Just because the criticism comes from an source that is of differening POV doesn't mean it is not noteworthy. You've actually justified the point of NPOV. All significant points of view should be represented - regardless of if the source is "right-wing" or not. They have criticism and such should be included. It is unlikely to get criticism from a left-wing organization - not sure of your point. To not include the criticism would be POV - not the other way around. Morphh ^(talk) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

5/4/2007. But in such a short entry, to have only a short quotation of the Center's purpose followed by a "different POV" with footnotes, is neither informative nor objective. If you are going to list praise from conservative organizations, then you should present praise from others. This entry not only read as if it were agenda-driven, it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. With what I was able to find out about this center from other sources, Wikipedia should remove this entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.223.226 (talk • contribs)

The best thing to do is to expand the article to include the other context that you describe. From my review, the criticism is relatively minor in size relation to the other text. It is one sentence, not sure how you could call this an agenda. The information is appropriate for the article and sourced - See WP:NPOV. A more complete article should have a more complete section on criticism describing why they think this organization has published misleading studies. If you have sourced rebuttal from this organization that we can include it. This article should represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Morphh ^(talk) 19:03, 04 May 2007 (UTC)