Talk:National Academy of Public Administration (United States)

Initial comments

This is a Congressionally Chartered non-profit organization with no authority to seek profits or reason to advertise itself. I will help provide accurate information and clarify any further conflicts.

• Yes, but is it important? Is there any reason that we need an article on this organization? It doesn't seem to make policy. In fact, the article's rather vague on what it actually does. Also, I doubt that the picture of the office building or the logo will survive the image gauntlet-- we frown on fair use images, and neither add all that much to the article. Also, in the future, sign your posts with ~~~~. humblefool® 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, I will try to address them in my next edit. I agree we could delete the office picture as it adds nothing to the article. The Academy makes policy through the recommendations and findings issued in its studies of agencies or government challenges. The Small Business Administration is currently implementing the findings from one of those studies to respond to catastrophic disasters. I could include some of this information in a section titled "Recent History." On the other hand, in a stricter application of this concept, only Congress is authorized to make policy, not agencies, departments, or even the Judiciary and President. I noted the National Academy of Science has a page. The National Academy of Public Administration is considered its sister organization.EQ 14:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Response: The National Academy serves an important role in the evaluative process of government programs and policies. Congress chartered the Academy to provide assistance in making government work better. This seems important to me. I don't see this as an advertising piece. I have been familiar with the Academy for years and many people in Government respect their efforts. All wikipedia articles can be improved, but this one doesn't seem to have any glaring errors. The logo seems just as legit as any of the other postings with logos. Take a look at the posting for the World Bank Group. How is this on any different? -- Thanks Androskit 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Napa home.jpg

Image:Napa home.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

• I removed the 'United States National Academies' category as it is a proprietary name (see United States National Academies,) and this article's organization is not one of those academies: that category ([[Category:United States National Academies]]) is for those academies. The phrase is a descriptive name and sounds like it could apply to any national academy, and often gets confused with the name specific to the organization known as the United States National Academies. I too confused its use on another article, and I see others have as well. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)