Talk:American Enterprise Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I edited the description of Michael Novak since it originally had a rather negative POV. Jpcarver 14:06 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure that you haven't taken it too far the other way now? (I'm not accusing or anything, just raising the question. I've never heard of the man and have no opinion for myself.) Tannin

Well, I tried give a neutral description of what he does: "He has written extensively about the role of faith in government." I don't think that sentence gives an endorsement or criticism to his position; it just says he has written a lot about faith in government. The previous description seemed more critical of his ideas. But I appreciate the feedback, Tannin. Jpcarver

Contents 1 Addition to Funding Sources 2 Funding 3 Nonpartisan? Who are we kidding? 4 Describe this org more accurately 5 conservative, liberal, communist, decide yourself 6 Socialist leanings over thirty years old 7 Global warming controversy 8 Category Global Warming Skeptics 9 Zionism 10 Criticism section 11 POV problem

[edit] Addition to Funding Sources

Can anyone confirm that Microsoft has funded the AEI? This article is referenced by Common criticisms of Microsoft. --demonburrito 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funding

It should be noted that it is not the policy of the AEI to list funders, and they are not obligated to do so. If I am wrong about this, please let me know.--demonburrito 05:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonpartisan? Who are we kidding?

How can this organization be described as nonpartisan? They are described everywhere else as a right wing think tank and are funded by Coors and Scaife, come on. The article should state that they are only nonpartisan in a legal technicality sense in order to maintain tax exempt status, but in a practical operational sense they are as partisan as possible.

They are not partisan. They advocate for ideological positions, but also oppose Republican policies if they do not fit their policy preferences. Rkevins82 17:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

CNN has recently given free reign to David Frum and Frederick Kagan to speak about Iraq Policy on behave of the 'American Enterprise Institute' without having guests with alternate views to their statements of fact.

I think this is about the word "institutional." This means that when Fred Kagan basically wrote the (retardly) so-called "Surge" strategy, he could advocate personal policy positions independent from the AEI as a group.

THE LOOPHOLE: (From the end of a policy paper) The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the participants or the agencies by which they are employed.

[edit] Describe this org more accurately

I insist we note that everyone else describes this org as conservative, not just "sometimes". It is a more accurate reflection of how they are perceived. Lotsofissues 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conservative, liberal, communist, decide yourself

Joshua Muravchik (a resident scholar of AEI) was National Chairman of the Young Peoples Socialist League 1968-1973.

Type in "Young Peoples Socialist League, Vietnam war" in google, and see with your own eyes, in your own head what Neo-Cons like Muravchik were espousing during the Vietnam conflict. Below is an excerpt from their website.

"Throwing itself into the growing movement against the unjust war in Vietnam, the YSA quickly grew to become one of the largest and most effective radical youth groups in America. Despite competition from various ultra-left, Maoist and Stalinist groups, the Young Socialist Alliance, through coalitions such as the Student Mobilization, was able to build a mass youth movement against the war in Vietnam around the slogan of “Bring the Troops Home Now!” This was in contrast to the slogans of “Drive the G.I.s Into the Sea” and “Tune In, Tune Out” of its less serious competitors."

Agree or Disagree with Vietnam or the Iraq Wars. You have to hand it to the Neo-Cons for their absolute gut-wrenching Chickenhawkism. More Brass than a marching band.

And the Irving Kristol Award should merit a mention on the article for AEI.

Dean1970 July 06, 2006.

[edit] Socialist leanings over thirty years old

Muravchik and several other prominent neo-cons such as Irving Kristol famously turned their back on far-left liberalism before becoming conservatives. Muravchik's activities as part of a Socialist movement during the Vietnam War are therefore hardly relevant to judging the ideological bent of the American Enterprise Institute today. It is easy to see that many of the Institute's scholars and supporters possess a largely conservative social and economic outlook, however, it is worth noting that several prominent scholars such as Norm Ornstein and Ben Wattenburg are registered Democrats and often lean far to the left on certain issues, making the partisan affiliation of the Institute a bit harder to define.

What happened to their website? Seems like a few right wing websites are disappearing (also coalition for diplomacy in iran)

[edit] Global warming controversy

I'm not at all sure this current news belongs here -- Wikipedia is not a newspaper -- but since it's here, I've edited the article in an attempt to achieve a NPOV. Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Global Warming Skeptics

This category lists notable groups and persons who are skeptical about the scientific consensus on global warming as described in the global warming article. The AEI deny that they are "global warming skeptics", but they define "skeptic" in a very narrow way. The wiki list is much broader... Count Iblis 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this definition narrow? The AEI authors say they don't dispute the science, merely the policy recommendations proposed to deal with the problem. Could you please supply a citation that shows AEI disputes the science of global warming? You may be correct in saying that AEI should be called global warming skeptics, but when the organization specifically denies the charge you need to cite your sources. --dm ^(talk) 06:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

I don't see how this is a criticism. One person that works for AEI self-identified as a Zionist. Where's the criticism? Rkevins 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Even using the term "zionist" comes off as being racist; why not use "pro Israel"?

[edit] Criticism section

I was the person who posted the link to the BBC documentary regarding the uncontroverted Zionist agenda of the AEI. For some time now, I have fought tooth-and-nail with Wikipedia editors who, on one hand, have no qualms with citing as authority publications that are candidly Zionist, yet on the other hand, refuse to accept any critique of Zionist publications, entities, etc., even when they come from sources as credible as the BBC.

With all due respect, I hope that you people are actually advocating for Zionism because if you are simply that uninformed, then you really have no business editing a resource as widely used as Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.118.3.41 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I may have missed it, but the BBC documentary seems to be criticizing the AEI for being neo-con hawks, not for being Zionists. Can you give us a quote where they make the criticisms you mention? -Will Beback · † · 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I cut it because there was no allegation of criticism in the paragraph. The video may criticize AEI for being a zionist organization (though Will Beback suggests otherwise), but the paragraph did not make such a statement. If there is a reasonable criticism of AEI for being zionist, fine. That is not what was written. Rkevins 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rkevins, you are gravely incorrect. My post, verbatim, was:

The American Enterprise Institute has been criticized for its pro-Zionist policy agenda. In a May 18, 2003, BBC broadcast entitled, The War Party, Meyrav Wurmser, wife of AEI member David Wurmser and member of The Hudson Institute, candidly admitted that “many of us are Jewish” and that “all of us, in fact, are pro-Israel, some of us more fiercely so that others.”

If that is the only reason why the post was removed, how could you have missed this?

The BBC merely noted that AEI advocates Zionism. It wasn't a criticism. Every think tank takes positions on controversial subjects. In the United States, being pro-Israel is well within the normal political discourse. A majority of Congress could be accurately called "Zionist". Calling it a criticism is taking sides on the issue which violates NPOV. The section should be removed. --dm ^(talk) 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the section's quotation is misleading. Meyrav Wurmser said:

MEYRAV WURMSER

Hudson Institute

It was no more than a mental exercise than in a think tank by a group of people. Yes, many of us are Jewish, there is no need to apologise for that. Most of us, all of us in fact are pro Israel. Some of us more fiercely so than others. But we have no problem also criticising Israel.[1]

It's not even clear that Wurmser is talking about AEI, as opposed to a 1996 working group that advised Netanyahu. I see no point to this section. Is there a substantive criticism, or is being called a Zionist simply supposed to be a criticism by itself? -- TedFrank 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem

Why was the fact that Exxon didn't fund any global warming research deleted? -- TedFrank 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a statement from a WSJ editorial about your employer. Editorials are (of course) opinion pieces, and should be considered separately from factual content. It would be entirely appropriate to put the WSJ editorial into a separate "commentary" section if you wish. If I may say, your characterization of an opinion piece from a highly partisan source as "fact" suggests that your personal WP:COI in this matter is clouding your judgment. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact in question meets the standards of WP:A. Omitting it falsely implies that Exxon funded global warming research by AEI. As it is, the Wikipedia article one-sidedly describes the Guardian article in specific terms while only describing the rebuttal in generalized terms, a plain violation of WP:NPOV. The rebuttal should be explored fully: the Wikipedia article omits that AEI solicited work from IPPC supporters, that AEI has published work on climate change contrary to Exxon's position, and that a $10,000 honoraria is modest for the amount of work being solicited.[2] -- TedFrank 01:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that opinion pieces from partisan sources are to be accepted as factual information? Not that I have anything against the WSJ, being a subscriber until recently. But their editorial pages cannot be considered reliable sources of factual information. Again, it would be entirely appropriate in a section on reaction or commentary. For the main part of the article, we need objective sources. Raymond Arritt 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that facts that meet the standard of WP:A have been omitted in violation of WP:NPOV. Period. -- TedFrank 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incredible. Read the WSJ's editorial, with its vitriolic language. That anyone can view such a piece as factual reportage defies comprehension. Nonetheless, as a gesture of good faith I'll restore the quote. Raymond Arritt 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian uses such non-vitriolic terms as “intellectual Cosa Nostra”, and has been proven to have gotten basic facts wrong and misrepresent other facts, and you view it as perfectly neutral. Whatever. I recognize that NPOV requires Wikipedia to acknowledge fringe conspiracy theories like that of the Guardian, but that doesn't excuse omitting the truth when it's verifiable. I note that the article still omits relevant facts about the controversy. -- TedFrank 02:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)