Talk:Center for American Progress

message: Independent and nonpartisan?  First line CAP then Heritage Foundation and AEI that are linked as similiar.    
The Center for American Progress is an independent educational, public policy research, and advocacy organization.[2] The Center is a nonpartisan organization   
The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a private, conservative, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics and social welfare think tank founded in 1938  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.79.172 (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section heading

message: The Anti-Semitic incidents should be highlighted more because its a serious topic.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.192.211 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitism

message: I think there are some points which need immediate correction. Otherwise, the veracity of the article can be, and is called into question.
*First: The newspaper in Atlanta which is mentioned is the Constitution-Journal, _not_ the Atlanta Constitution. Please note their website/url - http://www.ajc.com/.
::[The newspaper is called The Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- 5.15.10]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.245.113 (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution & Validation nonexistent

message: I question GuyZero's 5/21/07 revert of the external link I added on 5/19/07. GuyZero removed my external link to the "Discover the Networks" entry for the Center for American Progress. "Discover the Network" describes itself as a "Guide to the Online Left". Its counterpart on the left is SourceWatch.  On most Wikipedia entries for conservative organizations, there is an external link to that organization's entry at SourceWatch.  It seems only reasonable to me on a meta-level that if Wikipedia allows the Sourcewatch external links, it ought to allow the "Discover the Networks" external links. I'll check back in a few days to see if GuyZero respondsJackjump 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, the linked page on Discover the Networks appears to contain unsourced claims (i.e. "CAP is the official Hillary Clinton think tank") that I couldn't find any other corroboration. This article is lacking any criticism and information with regards to funding -- my suggestion in the edit history is to perhaps incorporate some of the properly sourced material on the Discover the Networks into this article? On a meta-level, in my opinion, each external link should be considered individually, which applies equally to sourcewatch. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, GuyZero.  The SourceWatch links are to a Wiki, and thus change unpredictably over time.  Your perspective, which I think has merit, would suggest that external links to SourceWatch or other forms of changing user-generated content are not appropriate as external links from Wikipedia.  I'll think about what you say about the DTN link.Jackjump 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify -- my perspective is only that all external links should be checked and weighed individually for inclusion. I don't have an opinion either way with regards to SourceWatch. Wikipedia:External_links seems to be the relevant guideline. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps.  Thank you. Jackjump 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta-NPOV

message: where the source for this: "The Center is undergoing a period of rapid growth. Its personnel and budget now rival the prominent Cato Institute."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.111.198 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source?

message: Taken from the 2005 990 the budget information should be available, and also should be noted is their extension Center for American Progress Action Fund 2005 990. Infonation101 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget Information

message: From the section on the thinkprogress.org, I removed a description of what looks like a minor incident involving a false claim of plagiarism in a speech by John McCain.  It seems to have been inconsequential, and was supported only by a reference to an entry on the politico blog, and so I've removed it. --TS 04:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog

message: The link [5] to CfAP's mission statement is broken.  Searching its website, I can't find the quote used in the second sentence.  The link needs to be fixed and/or the sentence needs to be changed.Andonee (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Sentence

message: One editor seems intent on filling the lede with an entire paragraph of various sources describing the organization as "liberal."  This is clearly undue weight for an article this size, particularly given that we've already described their orientation in the first sentence.  The entire point of this seems to be to bias the reader.  There's no need to spoon-feed the reader an opinion, and there's especially no need to be so redundant with something ultimately irrelevant to the article.  It's difficult to draw consensus on these off-the-beaten-path articles because there aren't a lot of editors involved, but this editor has not even attempted to discuss it, much less reach a consensus.  It would be great to get some discussion, especially from non-involved editors, otherwise I'll post an RFC later this week.  Thanks!  --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not uninvolved, but I agree that the addition doesn't belong in the lead.  However, since secondary sources describe the CAP as "liberal" more often than "progressive," so I think the lead should say "liberal." Drrll (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to the lede without any consensus. 

message: I noticed the controversy over some of the staffers using possibly anti-Semitic language in tweets, blogs, etc. was added a few days ago and then reverted with the reason: One article (published today!) is not notable enough for inclusion. If it turns into a real controversy we can add it back. See WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS).  I believe now that some more time has passed and it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources (), it is notable enough to add. It has also been discussed in other news sources but in the opinion sections so I won't count those as reliable. GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the above editor, TallMountains, has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: :Daniel J. Weiss redirects to this article, but there  is no mention of him in the article.  Is this a faulty redirect? --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: he is employed there, but not of significance. so, yes, looks faulty to me. Soosim (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Daniel J. Weiss 

message: What is disputed as not being NPOV? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to several of the other sections of this "Talk:" page -- especially those which contain the character string "NPOV" in their titles -- such as "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Meta-NPOV".  "See also" (e.g.) "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Nonpartisan.3F.3F" and "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Recent_edits_to_the_lede_without_any_consensus.".  I am not sure whether "Talk:Center_for_American_Progress#Controversy" would also be considered to be an "NPOV" issue ... but feel free to read that, too.  I hope this helps.  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed NPOV 

message: There have been no recent discussions about the neutrality of the article. I would like this issue to either be resolved (if it still exists), or the tag should be removed. Dustin (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality tag 

message: I reverted this, an editor wrote an edit summary "good point" and restored the "and others", leaving only my linking. IMHO once "and others" is removed it shouldn't be restored without naming them. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenwald and others? 

message: The Center for American progress is defined as liberal"  based on "self-reporting."  it does not follow any objective metric for liberalism.  Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be " Economic Liberalism"  Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism, or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.   Therefore, I would use increased precision and say they advocate for "economic liberalism" etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Eshaparvathi. I don't know what you mean by 'self-reporting'.  We can't use our any analysis here, see no original research and we don't, we use several reliable sources which call it liberal, or to be exact call its viewpoints liberal. So far as your analysis goes, I know what you are saying about Economic liberalism but that's not the only meaning of liberalism, see Social liberalism and more specifically to the US, Modern liberalism in the United States. There isn't any neutral point of view issue here and I've removed the template. As an aside, besides the unusual nature of our policy of no original research which means our articles rely on sources rather than editors' opinions, our neutral point of view policy often confuses new editors (and some experienced ones). Doug Weller talk 07:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no source to back up the claim that Center for American progress is liberal besides the website written by the Center of American Progress.  Shouldn't there by an independent source that would back up such a claim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Eshaparvathi, you haven't responded to what I wrote. And you haven't read the article carefully. It does not call it liberal. It says that it " presents a liberal[2] viewpoint" and as I wrote above it that is backed by several reliable sources. I have no idea why you say there are no sources for that. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Should we describe CAP as "liberal" or progressive in the lede? I'm leaning towards liberal Jonathan Williams (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Center for American Progress. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114015946/http://www.americanprogress.org:80/issues/2006/09/05/strategic_redeployment.html to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/09/05/strategic_redeployment.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229085328/http://genius.americanprogress.org:80/give/ to http://genius.americanprogress.org/give/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112010309/https://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/ to https://www.americanprogress.org/about/our-supporters/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407005230/http://www.campusprogress.org:80/ to http://www.campusprogress.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Center for American Progress. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204183431/http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/liberal-group-claims-transparency-but-keeps-some-donors-names-secret-20150121 to http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/liberal-group-claims-transparency-but-keeps-some-donors-names-secret-20150121
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entry doesn't say much (or anything) about the positions CAP takes about issues. For example, what's their position on health care? On the miitary? On Israel? On anything? --Nbauman (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues? 

message: The section on Funding has a table showing top donors in 2015. The title of the table has a citation (#46 - Our Supporters) which is a link to a washingtonpost link which is broken. Would be good to fix this. (Apologies if this is the incorrect way to alert possible article editors to this problem - am not sure how to do this; suggestions/corrections welcome) Xmbecker (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: fyi - Broken link in citation