Talk:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead Sentence Description

I have added "left-leaning" to the opening sentence to give visitors to this page a clearer understanding of the CBPP's motivation and angle when it presents studies, launches programs, and provides commentary on the issues of the day. As is the case with any "think tank," it's critical to note the perspective and/or bias of the source when assessing its output.

In this case, the New York Times is the arbiter, and its label is "left-leaning." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27web-budget.html?_r=1&hp Simplemeasures (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A NYT reporter's off-hand, two-word characterization without supporting evidence is not authoritative or NPOV. If you want to say that *some people* call the CBPP left-leaning, then that is fine. But if Wikipedia itself is to describe the CPBB as left-leaning, then it had better have some authoritative, incontrovertible evidence to back it up. Especially when that characterization is the first adjective in the very first sentence of the article. Maybe that evidence is out there, but your reference didn't provide it. Reverted. Kfm187 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the Heritage Foundation is going to be described as conservative in its lead sentence, then the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities should be described as liberal as well.TL36 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, since the wikipedia entries for the Tax Foundation identify it as right-leaning, and the Center for Tax Justice is, although less clearly, labeled as left-leaning, why isn't CBPP ACCURATELY described as also left-of-center? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding -- if the NYT says something is left-leaning, that is very strong evidence. Just as if Fox News says something is conservative, that is very strong evidence. Further agree with TL36.William Jockusch (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links

External links should be removed from the body of the article. To quote WP:EL: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an 'External links' section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." --JHP (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Left of Center"

Thank you. While I agree that the characterizations by the "right of center" think tanks need to be carefully examined and a blanket quotation of their opinions as to the leanings of the CBPP have no place being copy pasted into this article; the characterization of the CBPP as "left of center" by the NYTimes should be included. Primarily because it is not just some "off handed" quote by a reporter, everything in an article in the NYTimes is carefully thought out. Additionally, everyone here knows that if the article had called it a "right of center" nobody would be arguing with the NYTimes characterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes is also a paper of record. Thus, it is, by the very definition and rules provided by Wikipedia, a primary source and the "left-wing" description is valid.

Ok, there appears to be an edit war brewing about "left of center". From what I see there are two major news sources and papers of record that support this connotation. The first is the NYtimes article that is currently linked in the entry, and the second is this article from Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2111798,00.html). BOTH articles explicitly state that the CBPP is left leaning. Now, I can understand Furry's position that if the CBPP doesn't CALL itself a left leaning organization than we cannot label it as such because to use the NYTimes and Time magazine as sources would be using what other people think of the CBPP to define the CBPP. While I can SEE his position, I don't support it. I don't support it primarily because that happens ALL THE TIME on Wikipedia. If Furry wanted to be consistent he/she would have to go through every single article on Wikipedia and take out any reference to someone's political ideology unless that person has explicitly stated it, or that organization has explicitly stated it. That is just a ridiculous position. The second reason I don't supoort his/her position is that both the NYTimes and Time magazine are paper's of record and plenty of other articles cite NYTimes and Time magazine as sources EVEN IN articles that are written by authors. Now I know that Wikipedia has some unstated policy of "what happens in other articles shouldn't have bearing on the article being edited", which I agree with. But the use of that rule here is a red herring because we aren't saying "the Heritage foundation is labeled Right leaning thus the CBPP should be labeled Left leaning" we are simply saying "APPLY THE RULES EQUALLY". Thus, because two papers cite the CBPP as left leaning it should be labeled so, or, at the very least, there should be a qualifier like "some people claim it is left leaning". But to leave it out smacks of partisan behaviour and POV pushing. 151.207.242.4 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Foundation describes itself as Conservative. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities describes itself as non-partisan. FurrySings (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that. However, if you're position is that we can only call things what they call themselves then I think we both know Wikipedia would have A LOT of re-editing to do and we both also know Wikipedia doesn't work that way. So where to you suggest we put in the properly sourced material?151.207.246.4 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can follow Wikipedia policy. If Time and the NYT say that the CBPP is left of center, we can say that Time and the NYT say so. We don't have to conserve bandwidth. (Please also note Wikipedia policy on "weasel words": there is no reason to say "some people" when we can straightforwardly say who they are.) GcT (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Oho, I see that's what you went and did while I was reading the Talk page. :-) Well done.) GcT (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I say I'm a Chinese jet pilot that doesn't make it so. If the number of sources describing the subject as "left" or "liberal" are many and diverse, it isn't necessary or even appropriate to identify them all.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the left/right name-calling obfuscating (and I'm not alone in this thought). What is left or right, liberal or conservative, can vary greatly by reader, particularly since this is an international medium. It'd be nice if we could describe CBPP, TF, and other such groups by the work they produce and their connections, rather than pasting generic, sometimes questionable labels on them (my issue is with the media coverage, not the citations here, fwiw). I.e., the CBPP focus on "low- and moderate-income families and individuals" (I'm not cynical enough to believe that only leftists/liberals care about this segment of the population); TF is pro-business, etc. Perhaps elaborating is onerous, but the one-word labeling (by the media) seems lazy to me.--E8 (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully agree that the left-right dichotomy can often obfuscate, it's hard to think of another way to generalize the work of think tanks like CBPP. Plenty of policy groups are strictly nonpartisan, but still have a particular ideological bias. The nature of that bias cannot be reliably sourced from the organizations themselves when they choose the nonpartisan label. And though I could read a large sample of CBPP's research and decide for myself what their nuanced viewpoints are, I am not a reputable source and I would only be able to cite CBPP. The sourced media likely simplifies and stretches the truth to make a point of its own. But I'm not sure what other sources are available to more accurately identify a think tank's ideological bias. --UnscheduledTrackMaintenance (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Center_on_Budget_and_Policy_Priorities"