Jump to content

Talk:American Enterprise Institute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removing Fellows to their Own Page?

I'd suggest moving the list of fellows, scholars, and alumni to its own list, given that it's too long for the current article, and suffers from list-itis in its current form. --Haemo 05:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm also not sure what to do about the list of trustees; it seems unwieldly, and not really important. Could we either remove it, or find a better way to structure it? --Haemo 05:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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.[1] -- 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)
I'm here from the RfC, and I don't see a problem with the link. Yes, it's from an editorial - however, that editorial is from an organization known for fact-checking, even in their editorial pages. Furthermore, the articles makes it clear that the statement is from an editorial, not a regular column, so I don't think this is misleading anyone. --Haemo 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as Haemo is here, I repeat: 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] It thus violates NPOV by giving undue weight to only one side of the accusations made by left-wing groups using the Guardian. -- THF 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the WSJ editorial defending the AEI - I think both articles have a place here. Neither of them can be considered "unbiased" - however, they do back up the assertion that there was a controversy, and that the accusations made were rebutted both by the AEI and by other media. --Haemo 22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you were referring to. I'm pointing out that the article is still incomplete and violates POV because of what is omitted from the rebuttal. The Guardian allegations are detailed; the AEI rebuttal is generalized. They should be at the same level of generality. -- THF 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Okey dokey - what do you suggest? Perhaps something along the lines of "The rebuttals claimed that the Guardian piece misrepresented the AEI, and the letters, as advocating for a particular scientific viewpoint. In addition, they portrayed the honorarium as a form of bribery, when it was a typical reimbursement for the study requested (etc.) --Haemo 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Guardian "reporting" and the AEI "claiming"? Use the NPOV verb "state" for both. -- THF 22:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't use "reporting" because the AEI is not a newspaper, like the Guardian. But yes, I agree "state" is a good word to use. --Haemo

Further NPOV problems: "labels itself"

Count Iblis says that it is "POV" to actually call AEI, an independent non-profit organization, non-profit. What attributable POV says that AEI is not non-profit? The "labels itself" is the violation of NPOV, because it falsely implies that the label is disingenuous. // THF 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Non-profit" is a legal designation. The IRS determines whether a group qualifies. -Will Beback · † · 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For comparison: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Federation of Expellees, Creative Commons, James Randi Educational Foundation. Et cetera. I can't find another Wikipedia article about a non-profit organization where "non-profit" isn't used without a qualifier. This article shouldn't be any different. // THF 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of those negatives. Are you saying that "non-profit" should be used alone or that it should be qualified as a term that the subject uses to "label itself"? -Will Beback · † · 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that calling it a non-profit is totally acceptable. As point out, it's a legal designation, and the AEI doe not "label itself" non-profit. The government does. --Haemo 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying "label itself non-profit" violates NPOV and just "non-profit" does not in response to the Iblis edit mentioned above, and in explanation of my change so that no one accuses me of COI in making the change. As long as we all agree. THF 10:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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.[3]
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)
Okay, Ted went ahead and deleted the section, but I don't think there's a concensus here for doing so. However, I tend to agree that this is a silly section, and should probably be deleted. Calling something "zionist" or "neo-conservative" is not a criticism - and to call it as much is a clear POV. --Haemo 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, my change was reverted after I discussed it on the talk page and several other editors seemed to agree that the section didn't belong. I won't edit war. Can someone defend the presence of this section and quote? Because I haven't seen anyone do so ten days after I made the original request. If Haemo thinks it should be deleted, also, I fail to see the COI violation that required him to reinsert the bogus text; the edit was neutral. There's a weird double-standard for COI on Wikipedia, I must say. -- THF 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I think my edit summary was bad; I didn't mean to imply that you were breaking any rules, just that usually people personally involved in a topic tend to restrict their edits to just the talk page. Since we do appear to have consensus, I'll remove the paragraph myself. --Haemo 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


The American Enterprise Institute has been criticized for its pro-Zionist policy agenda. Neocons in both American and Israel influenced the decision to invade Iraq, without thinking Bush gave up the hunt for the real terrorists in the world, he broke up the global coalition to fight terrorists and went it virtually alone into Iraq where no terrorists existed. --RAH 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Irrational exuberance"

  • AEI garnered significant global attention on December 5, 1996, when Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan addressed the institute and remarked that the American stock market may have ascended unduly, attributable to what Greenspan called the "irrational exuberance" of investors.[11] Greenspan's comments to AEI proved to be among his most notable, leading to significant debate over whether American stock evaluations were, in fact, overvalued and even to a book named for the comment, Irrational Exuberance.[12]

The source, [4], does not say that the AEI received any attention at all due to the speech. The venue is a minor footnote for the speech, not the source of "significant global attention". I can see perhaps mentioning it in a list of important speeches, other otherisw briefly noting it, but I don't see why is merits an entire section. Aside from providing a podium, the AEI doesn't seem to have been involved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Guardian allegations about Exxon

Why isn't it mentioned that the New York Times investigated the Guardian allegations and found them "ridiculous"? http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/business/10nocera.html

Most recently, Exxon Mobil has been accused of “bribing” scientists through one of the organizations it helps finance, the American Enterprise Institute, to cast doubt on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. That’s the report that made headlines recently by saying there was a 90 percent certainty that human activities had been the main cause of global warming.
Some of the accusations hurled at Exxon Mobil are ridiculous — the “bribery” allegation turned out to be an effort by two American Enterprise Institute scholars to solicit articles from a range of global warming experts for a book they were putting together. They were paying $10,000 an article. (And Exxon Mobil, which contributes a minuscule portion of the group’s budget, knew nothing about the book until the accusations showed up in the papers.)
it was unfair to assume that Exxon Mobil held the puppet strings at the research institutions and other groups it financed. As a general rule, at a place like the American Enterprise Institute, it doesn’t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.43.50 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points (1) your quoting is selective, and (2) the NYT piece is editorial commentary, not straight reporting. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The quoting is not selective. That's every bit of the discussion about AEI in the article (which is about Exxon). And the very first footnote in the Wikipedia article is editorial commentary by Jacob Weisberg. But that's a wildly inaccurate hit-piece on AEI, so I guess that editorial commentary (without any indication that it's editorial commentary) is alright. You'd think reading this unbalanced Wikipedia article that global warming research is all AEI does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.43.50 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, AEI's global warming stuff is over-weighted here. The solution is to give more complete coverage of their involvement in economics, litigation, geopolitics, and so on rather than to cut down the GW material. I'm not knowledgeable (or, frankly, interested) in those areas but if you are, have at it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Although one should caution the IP, which hails from AEI, on the WP:COI issues. --David Shankbone 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting observation, but if an AEI staffer were to addadd objective and reliable info on the institution I would have no problem with it. Those qualifiers are important, though. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Several points from the anon bear responding to. First, as a researcher myself, the American Enterprise Institute is NOT a research organization. Research means doing work that advances the state of knowledge in some field, and having it critiqued in peer-reviewed literature, to advance ideas that are formulated a posteriori. The AEI and its scholars do no such thing. Their work generally consists taking a position a priori (in favor of, for example, lower taxes or less regulation), and selectively picking out certain facts and data generated by others to support that idea, and then putting forth papers targeted for politicians and/or the media. At best, this makes them a think tank. More accurately, it's lobbying (or deep lobbying if you prefer that term). {Remember, this "research" organization is the same one that employs Laurie Mylroie to come up with her theories that Saddam was responsible for: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks, the Anthrax scare, et cetera.)

The AEI takes money from those organizations, and then creates white papers to support positions those corporations wish to advance. More-or-less all of those positions, as this article says, happen to be exactly the ones their contributors favor. They take money from an oil company, and produce papers doubting global warming; they take money from RJ Reynolds, and produce papers doubting passive smoking; etc. This is not a coincidence, despite the AEI's (and the Anon's) attempts to claim otherwise. As to the bribery - nothing said in the New York Times casts a scintilla of doubt on the facts reported in the Guardian story. In fact, it confirms those facts - the AEI (or, if you want to split a mighty fine hair - two of its fellows) were offering to pay climate scientists to generate papers to support their position. Given that a bribe is "something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct", that sure sounds like a bribe to me. At best, you could argue that the Guardian article is unfair to ExxonMobile (by assuming they knew what the AEI was up to; I very much doubt the unattributed claims in the NY Times article that Exxon didn't). Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Climate change

After seeing article after article after article by the AEI shilling for a carbon tax, it's mystifying to see that this Wikipedia page not only refuses to mention this- but it also cherry-picks statements by varied AEI people to make the claim that the entire institute disbelieves in global warming. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of articles on the AEI website about global warming, some with titles like, "More Global Warming Nonsense".[5] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's one article by one person about an issue that's only tangently related to global warming-- whether or not rising temperatures is currently causing a malaria epidemic. Labeling someone a 'global warming skeptic' just becuase they think that x,y,z world events are not caused by global warming is ludicirous. Do you believe that the darfur genocide is caused by global warming? If not, can I label you a 'global warming skeptic'?
Most (but not all) AEI articles are like this one, written by the director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies:
A multi-country cap-and-trade system, with emissions rights assigned in a way that initially demanded little of China and India but created powerful financial incentives for businesses in rich countries to pay Asians to use clean technologies, could make everyone happy--and at far lower cost than goit-alone strategies. There are serious challenges in designing such a system--notably, verifying that emission reductions actually take place. But with the potential for reducing the overall cost of a successful climate change policy so high, the risks of learning by doing are surely worth it. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


We could cite writings all day long. If you have a source saying that the aren't global warming sceptics then go ahead and add it. If you want to add that some members support a carbon tax, that's appropriate too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

The Project for the New American Century (another Kristol-Perle-Wolfowitz project) stopped paying its server costs recently, and that was heavily involved in advocating both for the current Iraq war and for Operation Desert Fox (the Clinton version). I imagine it has something to do with a desire not to be tried for war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.192.17 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, we need a citation

You quote this page, which says, "The claim that the science of climate change is “settled” beyond dispute is belied by the almost-weekly publication of peer-reviewed research that is inconsistent with or directly contradicts the conventional narrative of catastrophic climate change."

First of all, if you look at that page in its entirety, it's clearly not a denier's heaven. The cited articles mostly support the essential propositions of global warming. This cherry-picked sentence taken out of context cannot support the proposition that they are "frequent critics of the prevailing scientific view of global warming."

It seems that they deny the climate change will be catastrophic. That seems consistent with the latest research, including the latest IPCC report. While the report removes all doubt that climate change is related to the burning of fossil fuels, it has taken some of the most of the catastrophic scenarios off the table—no turning off the gulf stream, for example. Climate change is man made, will be costly, and will probably kill many people, but it will not be catastrophic in the sense that scientists thought it might be possible a few years ago. From what I can tell, most of the AEI papers are actually agree with man-made climate change, including one of the papers cited against the IPCC. We should have an actual source that says they're frequent critics. Uncited original research is not enough. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the the descripton, with the citation to the AEI webpage, and removed the word "frequent". The page on the AEI website clearly backs the current writing in this article. Their website is phrased in such a way as to include as many papers as possible so as to raise as much doubt as possible. And they explicitely stated the intent of that page - to show that global warming is "belied by the almost-weekly publication of peer-reviewed research that is inconsistent with or directly contradicts the conventional narrative of catastrophic climate change." Raul654 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what it says, and I read their statement differently, as I described above. They seem to support the consensus, but deny that catastrophic outcomes will occur, and are hostile toward command-and-control responses to it, especially Kyoto. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange choice of anecdotes re Iraq

It's awfully strange that the 2009 McCain speech is mentioned, but the far more influential 5 January 2007 speeches by McCain and Lieberman introducing the idea of the surge are not. THF (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

tobacco

Hasn't this institute taken some interesting and notable positions on smoking and the tobacco industry? I don't know the facts/citations but they might be worth pointing out.--OMCV (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it would be even more interesting to understand the AEI funding relationship with the tobacco industry in light of historic articles like [6].--OMCV (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agricultural Subsidies / Farm Bill

Currently, there is not even a mention of the AEI's stances on Agricultural subsidies, in particular the farm bill. The AEI has taken very strong and direct stances in opposition to agricultural subsidies, see [7]. This seems very relevant/interesting, so I am going to start adding this material. Cazort (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious: Is AEI a WP "Reputable/Reliable Source" and how many wikipedia articles cite AEI ?

I think that the AEI constitutes what the Wikipedia community would consider a reputable source. But what the hell do I know? Not much most likely.

I am curious as to how many wikipedia articles cite AEI or a AEI published paper as a source.

How would someone find that out? Are there any search engines that or Wiki stats that can be used to determine the link topology within the Wikipedia?

You might have to go through and count, unless you have the ability to automate a search for uses of "The American" magazine as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.192.17 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And actually, I am using AEI just as an example. It could just as easily be any other "Washington Think Tank", say the Brookings Institute, or the CATO, or ...?

In fact, I think I will place this comment on their pages too. (And I did.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.16 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider them, and most other think tanks, as reliable. AEI has a definite point of view, but so do other think tanks (and most other institutions or groups, for that matter), including Public Citizen, the Urban Institute, the Economic Policy Institute, Brookings, Aspen, Heritage, etc. In my judgment it's important to look at each document they publish and distinguish between opinion pieces, promotional articles, thought pieces, research studies, etc. For research studies to look at the quality of the research. Solid work isn't limited to any particular point on the philosophical or political spectrum (and surprising bad work is sometimes done by the supposed "good guys"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastTN (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the key of whether or not AEI is a reliable source depends on how it is used. I am of the opinion that it is not a reliable source for statements such as "X is true", just because they issued a report by several economists saying "X is true". Such statements are only appropriate for very simple facts that are essentially uncontested (like this event happened on this date, etc.). I think the appropriate way to source things, especially from a think-tank like AEI (and every think-tank is biased, most heavily so!), is to say "The American Enterprise Institute released a report in 2003 stating that X is true", or something similar. So, no, I would never have a problem with that type of sourcing...AEI is an influential and well-respected think-tank and if it releases reports on things, it's probably worth looking at them and citing them--but this doesn't mean accepting them as truth. Cazort (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Neoconservative"

This is a controversial label that doesn't even apply to most folks at the AEI. About ten times as many sources published in the last two years in Lexis show the word "conservative" in the same sentence as "American Enterprise Institute" rather than "neoconservative." (1728 vs. 179). Therefore, I think we should simply call it a conservative think tank and then go on to say that its foreign policy group is known for neoconservative views. The flat identity now written is misleading, and I see that editors have fought about it. Any disagreement? Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, we have a cited source saying that it's the "the chief fulcrum of neoconservatism", and you remove it from the lead, and point to the political stance section, which says "AEI has connections with the neoconservative movement in American politics". One of these things is not like the other. Raul654 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, we should discuss the associations in the lead, but "neoconservative" does not encompass much of the work this group does—just the foreign policy. News sources, if not Slate editorials, demonstrate this. Cool Hand Luke 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They are practically the home of neoconservatism

I disagree with this assessment. Among the high-profile neocons to have taken positions at the AEI:

They really should hang a shingle outside their door that reads, "Home of Neoconservatism". The only one missing is Norman Podhoretz, and perhaps that is under contract negotiation. Regardless, there are sources that more accurately describe this think tank for what it is: a neoconservative one. Let's not use Wikipedia to look at the world through rose-colored glasses. --David Shankbone 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. Let's not use it for OR either. Many of the group's members are not neoconservatives, although they do host many of them. Most reliable sources call it "conservative." That should get the flat statement, and the group's heavy involvement in neoconservativism should then be explained in an encyclopedic manner. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not OR, buddy, those are just facts. --David Shankbone 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"Conservative" let alone "neoconservative" are terms that aren't that common outside the U.S. The broader world tends to put views on a left-center-right coordinate. Indeed, AEI is widely regarded as the mothership of neoconservatism by reliable sources. But I'd rather describe them as center-right in the lead, then explain their leadership of the neoconservative movement in a way that allows sufficient detail. Raymond Arritt 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In the English speaking world neoconservative is known and it reflects a very particular ideology. Here's a BBC article about whether Tony Blair is a neoconservative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3033913.stm --David Shankbone 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, then state the facts, as reported. AEI is conservative think tank, which hosts many prominent neoconservatives. We should be hesitant in flatly calling it "neoconservative" given the dearth of references and the controversial, poorly-defined meaning of the term. References show that it's known for neoconservative fellows, and we should discuss this in full, but we shouldn't choose a minority label because of what we think they should shingle their door with. Incidentally, I find your rose-colored glasses remark extremely weird. It implies (1) that I have an interest for or against the AEI, and (2) that I think "neoconservativism" is a better or worse thing that "conservativism." Neither of these things are true; I just want to get the article right. Cool Hand Luke 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That BBC article I supplied gives a definition. It's really not that poorly defined. In fact, it has a very well-documented ideology and belief system. The AEI even has a book called "The Neocon Reader" --David Shankbone 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no controversy or disagreement about about the term or its meaning? really? It's controversial both in definition and in use. Of late, it's almost exclusively a pejorative. We should be careful about tossing such term around, and certainly not in cases where another term beats it ten-to-one in usage. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really. One can dig up people who disagree on any topic you want. But Neocons don't really have any problem with being called neocons. It's use as a pejorative is perhaps the same as "liberal" is sometimes used a pejorative, even though it is not. Because both terms are used to describe hopelessly failed policies by those who use it as an accusation than a description. But that doesn't make it "controversial" and linking to a minor controversial section, where some of the "controversy" isn't even controversy, doesn't really back you up. Maybe you should read the AEI's "Neocon Reader" book? --David Shankbone 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
1. That's not an AEI book more than any other by a fellow traveler (not AEI Press). 2. Yeah, their foreign policy folks are neoconservatives, but they are more than their foreign policy wing. They also host books (and support fellows) against welfare, in favor tort reform, religious traditionalism, federalism, and any number of topics that definitional neocons are indifferent about. Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be put out by the "AEI Press" to be an AEI book - they shop it on their site because it follows their polemics. It's an "AEI book" because it is AEI-endorsed. There are not realpolitik books up there. Many of the topics you describe very much fit in with the neoconservative ideology and they, indeed, are not indifferent about them. Perhaps if you explore it beyond the Wikipedia page you'll realize they are about more than just foreign policy. Whether that has to do with their own ideology or their own strategic advancement is open for debate. --David Shankbone 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Beyond foreign policy the definition of neoconservative is controversial if not nonexistent. It's certainly not worth trying to shoehorn the group into this label when the sources don't support it. We on Wikipedia don't decide such things. When reliable sources disagree, we don't decide for ourselves that the 10% minority is right because of our unique understanding of what a term means. We don't baselessly claim that an organization precisely embodies an ideology (including positions that the ideology's article is silent on), and that the term is non-controversial and clear (which the term's article pointedly refutes). Since you seem to know so much about neoconservativism, perhaps you should edit that article. The sources just don't support a flat label here. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally—and I don't want to get off-track here, but how are Charles Murray (with solid libertarian credentials) and Norman Ornstein (a moderate with little foreign policy work) even neoconservative? I noticed that you filtered some obvious non-neocons like Fred Thompson, but I'm seriously mystified by your claim that this is a "neoconservative thinktank" period. Cool Hand Luke 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson not a neocon? Ha!. Certainly is. Charles Murray is completely affiliated with the neoconservative movement (we can debate that, but you're right, that would be off-track) [idle, reckless claim about Ornstein removed per WP:BLP]. It's funny - I had completely anticipated your bringing those two up. I'm surprised you raised Thompson since he is pretty much seen in the neocon policy camp. --David Shankbone 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Neocons "use him"?[8] And Murray, who wrote a book about being a libertarian, is a neocon why? Look, you provided a BBC definition of neoconservativism, which is about as vague and amorphous as any other, and these people don't seem to fit. You've provided no reliable sources, let alone plausible original analysis that shows these people are neoconservatives. This seems to just be an axiom for you.
And I should stress that I'm not asking to censor anything. The connections can and should be documented. But calling the group "neoconservative" is wrong: it's more broadly conservative than that. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you don't have a source for the above remark about Ornstein, I suggest you remove it per WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Luke, if you want to do moot court nit-picking, why don't you stop yourself from carrying it out on Talk page and take it to my own Talk page? You like to do this whole "I don't want to get off-track....but I'll get off track." "I don't want to Wiki lawyer...but I'll wiki lawyer..." thing. I list a massive list of people, you take issue with a few. In typical moot court fashion, you don't want to be fine with the fact that your edit to mainspace stuck with everyone and it is considered fine...you just want to moot moot moot it to death. Bring it off the discussion page for the article (or are you the brave defender of these people?) and take it to my Talk page if you really want to moot details over something that is already settled. --David Shankbone 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a bold attempt at incorporating ties to neoconservatism in the intro. To me, it's POV to define them as neocon - they have a long history, and (even today) I don't think they are "defined" by neoconservatism. Yet, there is definitely a neocon presence there, especially in its influence on the Bush White House. So I think mentioning the association in the intro is appropriate, and it belongs in the paragraph about the influence on the WH. ATren 06:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your boldness, and reverted it. Three of us have come to a consensus as to how this should be presented, and denying their association--predominant association--with neoconservatism is just denying reality. But the consensus seems to work for everyone, so perhaps we should leave it at that. --David Shankbone 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
When did I deny their association? ATren 06:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "deny" is too strong, but they are almost predominantly viewed as a neocon organization. When people think "AEI" they think "Neocon" - which is their own doing, and they make no apologies for it. I found the statement above to be watering that down. --David Shankbone 06:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "neocon" when I think "AEI". And I don't think anything I said watered anything down. A "neocon organization" would be exclusively neocons - this organization is not exclusive, neither in its stated policy nor in its membership. To say they are "associated with neocons" is the most verifiable statement that can be made, and that's what I reverted to. ATren 07:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think it is inaccurate to peg AEI as "neocon", and I myself do not view it that way. Surely it has many neocons within it and has put out much work that is in line with neocon ideology--including much stuff in defense of the George W. Bush presidency. But it's a large and complex organization. As an example of departing from the neocon agenda, their uncompromising opposition to the farm bill and all agricultural subsidies stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's blind support of those things--and this would suggest to me that they are, at least in some of their work, genuinely advocating free-market economics and small government. Neocon = big business + big government...more authoritarian and pro-big-corporation than free market or libertarian economics. Cazort (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The "conservative" label

I've removed "conservative" and "neoconservative" from the intro, because AEI describes themselves as neither. For equivalent groups like FAIR, Media Matters and Brookings Institution, we do not use "liberal" in the intro, therefore POV dictates we should be consistent for conservative groups. ATren (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a clear attempt to whitewash the article. I have reverted. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And I assume you will now add "liberal" to intros of FAIR, Media Matters, Brookings, and all the other left-leaning think tanks and watchdogs that are not similarly labelled? BTW, please AGF. Whitewashing is untrue and unwarranted. ATren (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If AEI does not describe itself as "conservative" or "neoconservative," the most even-handed approach would seem to be to lead by describing how the organization identifies itself, and then to note how others describe it (along with appropriate citations) and identify who describes it that way (e.g., media, critics, etc.). It also seems fair to say that we should treat think tanks across the political and philosophical spectra evenhandedly. This general approach (who do they say they are, who do others say they are, and who is it that's doing the saying) seems fair to me for any organization of this type.EastTN (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to refer to the same discussion regarding FAIR. The consensus there seems to be to to use the group's own self-identification/self-description even though there are multiple media references describing the group as "liberal." On the other hand, the consensus on the discussion page for Brookings seems to be to lead with the group's self-identification, and then note that it's viewed by others as "liberal" (that's how the article itself stands now). If we're going to be non-POV, we really should use the same policy for all of these groups, whether it be to use only the group's own self-identification, or to supplement it with the labels given it by the media and critics of the group. What we should not do is pick and choose which groups we're going to flag with the labels given to them by others.
I agree with EastTN's comments here...that the appropriate way to handle this situation is to cite (a) how each organization describes itself, and (b) how other influential organizations and press describes the organization. Merely saying "It is conservative" or "It is liberal" is not appropriate for the article when there is any controversy--it needs to be clearly delineated who is claiming it to be what. Cazort (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Non-partisan"

I've removed the adjective "non-partisan" from the description of AEI in the lead. While AEI may be non-partisan in the technical sense of having no formal party affiliation, it is generally understood as "partisan" in the sense of advocating a set of viewpoints identified with American conservatism. Our article on non-partisan actually has a nice explanation of this. Basically, I think it is a bit misleading to make a blanket statement that AEI is "non-partisan"; that's true in one technical sense of the word, but not as the word is more generally used. MastCell Talk 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've disambiguated the link to refer to a new article I created on the subject. This issue comes up from time to time both in Wikipedia and in political discussions generally, so it's useful to distinguish between the technical tax / election law term and the common usage. I can't do a survey easily but many articles about organizations put it up in the lead in the same sentence where they mention the nonprofit and organizational status, and other vital stats. With a link that should be enough. Sometimes it's helpful to use language like "officially" or "designated as" or "organized as", although that's a bit of wishy-washy speak. I see that's done in the body of the article, so that seems reasonable. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I really like both the phrase "officially non-partisan" and the wikilink to Nonpartisan (American organizations). Cheers, CWC 20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A small contradiction

I've read this article and the first paragraph of the introduction, which states The American Enterprise Institute [...] is a conservative think tank [...], contradicts with the first paragraph of the section Political stance, which says AEI is officially nonpartisan [...]. Wouldn't it be better if the first paragraph of the introduction stated The American Enterprise Institute [...] is an officially non-partisan think tank widely considered to be conservative [...]? Faunas (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ostensibly non-partisan" might be a bit more accurate. Yes, Washington insiders like Lynne Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz are, or have been on the AEI board, or have closely associated themselves with AEI. Yes, AEI characters, and other think tank/lobbyist types seem to attempt to influence a broad host of public policy matters in a manner befitting a fourth branch of governement, but "official" might not be the best word choice for this situation. CriticalChris 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
"Non-partisan" doesn't mean apolitical. It means they don't formally support any political party or political candidate, which AEI does not do. All 501(c)3 organizations must be non-partisan to maintain their tax-exempt status. This does not prevent them from having a political ideology such as conservatism or from endorsing particular political ideas. Hence, there is no contradiction between conservative and non-partisan. Many left-wing, non-partisan groups exist as well. —D. Monack talk 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See two threads up, where the same issue was raised. MastCell Talk 03:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Center for Defense Studies

Thomas Donnelly has been noisy lately (running for something?), so the CDS needs a mention and at least a redirect here.

http://www.defensestudies.org/contact-us/

Hcobb (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Description

WP:V, which is after all core policy, is quite clear that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine). When describing this group, we should rely on reliable third-party descriptions as the basis of our article and lead. An organization's self-description can be mentioned, as long as it's clear that it's a self-description. The self-description should not be substituted for the content of reliable, independent sources, however. That's the difference between a press release and an encyclopedia, and it's part of policy. In that light, I've reverted this edit, but would welcome further (policy-based) discussion. MastCell Talk 03:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think e have to start with separating non-partisan from conservative. They can be both. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
My preference is for organizations to be labeled according to third-party reliable sources. When I have done that myself, several experienced editors (including an admin) have said that the standard on WP is self-description. There are several organizations labeled 'progressive' because that's a self-description, instead of 'liberal' as given in reliable sources. I would like to know if there is a WP policy or guideline on the issue. I don't mind using both descriptions if policy allows using third-party descriptions vs. self-description. Drrll (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Alternately, you could use terms like "advocacy group" or "think tank" and let an organization's policy stand for itself. You probably don't need to call an environmental organization "liberal" or an anti-tax organization "conservative." Just cite examples of how the organization stood on various issues. If anything, that does a better job of describing something than trying to make sense out of various third parties' opinions or an organization's usually skewed self-description.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Non-partisan"

An editor has changed the description to "(though officially nonpartisan)" in the lead. While I really don't have a problem with this change per se, several experienced editors have said that the standard in Wikipedia is self-description (where the self-description is not qualified and the third party descriptions are qualified). As I said before, I think that this standard should be reversed, but we should follow consistently in regard to all organizations whatever convention WP has. Drrll (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That was me. My version was:
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative<usnewscons"><"cbsnewscons"><"wapocons1"><"nytcons1"> (though officially non-partisan<"aeinonpartisan">) think tank founded in 1943.
I've qualified "non-partisan" with "officially", linked it to Nonpartisan (American organizations) instead of non-partisan, and moved it after "conservative".
It now reads:
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative,[...] non-partisan[.] think tank founded in 1943.
This is better prose, and avoids the confusing word "officially" (my bad).
The problem is, I think, that "bipartisan" does not mean what many people think it means. In describing any major Washington think tank, "non-partisan" is about taxation status etc, not about political stances. For example, the AEI and the Brookings Institution are both non-partisan, while being basically conservative and liberal respectively. AFAICT, non-aligned groups are invariably called "bipartisan", precisely (I assume) because "non-partisan" has this narrow, technical meaning. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on this not-terribly-obvious distinction. As multiple people have already commented, we should say that the AEI is both conservative and non-partisan, because both are important descriptors here. (Hmm. There's a retroactive basic for my edit here: "conservative" is a more important aspect of AEI than "non-partisan", and therefore should be mentioned first.)
It seems we have consensus to describe the AEI as both conservative and non-partisan, and a wording we can live with. Does anyone disagree? CWC 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Drrll, ideally, we would like to have a third party source for it. Why, because we deem it more reliable than self-description. However, practically, this is not always feasible, because nobody really ever discussed that aspect. If there would be a solid reliable source stating that this group's self labeling as non-partisan is really incorrect because of "... ... ...", then I think adding non-partisan to the lead would be problematic. But as long as that is not the case, I do not see a problem using their self-description. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Kim, I agree with your sentiment on this. However, I have seen several instances where for example "liberal" was sourced to third parties for organizations like Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress, but it was replaced by the self-descriptor "progressive." There seems to be a large contingent of editors on Wikipedia who believe that self-description should be the standard (at the exclusion of third-party sources), including some experienced admins. It would be nice to see WP policy or guidelines that address this. Drrll (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, you have a bone to pick about various liberal/progressive groups, because you keep bringing them up. Please go pick that bone at the talk pages of the respective articles. Let's use this talk page to discuss this article, rather than as a sounding board for your concerns about the words "liberal" vs. "progressive".

If you agree with Kim's edits to this article (as I do), then we should be done. I don't really understand why you keep mentioning unnamed "experienced admins" and their actions at other articles. If you have a problem with other articles, go to their talk pages. If you have a problem with an "experienced admin", see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Since it sounds like we both agree with Kim's edits, I'm not sure what else remains to be said in this venue. MastCell Talk 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Secret masters funding studies that support their own economic interests is an innately nonpartisan activity. They have a narrow focus on their own greed and probably don't even care about social issues. (If they took one moment to look at what their policies are doing to American families their hearts would crack.) Hcobb (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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)
Clearly the AEI is partisan by virtue of the fact they are political. Politics is the process of deciding who makes the decisions. How can you be political without being partisan? These are the kind of folks who would argue that the thing that greets you when you get home, barks, fetches the ball, and wags it's tail is not a dog. Also you seem to be redefining the meaning of partisan. It is a term that was around long before there were Democrats and Republicans as we know them. If I am mistaken, then maybe you should correct the history of the French Revolution. 99.56.136.67 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2011 (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.

You are confusing ideology with political party. They are nonpartisan but ideological. Rather Republican Party, Constitutional Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party, right wing of the Democrat Party, or whatever it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Partisan doesn't mean of a political party(necessarily). #2 on wiktionary is "A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea." They are exactly that, and attachment to a particular United States political party is only one means of establishing partisanship. A more general understanding of the term "Non-partisan" is to communicate a lack of bias. That is an idea that is not established in the slightest by any reliable sources. At best it's under-informing the reader. At worst the phrase as its used is misinforming them. i kan reed (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The AEI is a lobbying group

The AEI is more a lobbying group for Israeli interests rather than an actual think tank. A think tank is something that analysis and puts forward ideas objectively, but the AEI works backwards from what is best for Israel. For example, recently AEI "scholar" Michael Rubin (surprise surprise, another Jew in the AEI) openly called for war on Iran for Israel's benefit. The AEI's essentially Israel-centered views have been called out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimOrienved (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1401762~Critics_question_nomination_for_school_watchdog_post.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-844077~Arm_chair_generals_help_shape_surge_in_Iraq.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

From AEI'S WEBSITE: "As a tax-exempt educational organization governed by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AEI is generally prohibited from attempting to influence legislation in the U.S. Congress or other legislative bodies."

501(c)(3) organizations are not required to disclose their donors.

From IRS website: "Is a tax-exempt organization required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors?

A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF). The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents. Contributor names and addresses listed on an exempt organization's exemption application are subject to disclosure, however."


FrancisDane (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The American Enterprise Institute is the most hawkish of the Washington "think tanks," and that its staffers were key to thinking up and promoting the Iraq War with lies and propaganda. I remember in the run up to the invasion Paul Wolfowitz was on NPR radio trying to sell the war. He used all the catch phrases of the neocons scare tactic like saying,

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And “We know exactly where the WMDs are.“

When pressed by the NPR host, with the simple logic if he knows where the WMDs are, why won’t he tell the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors where to go look?

His answer was it was “a matter of National Security”… 

We spent $450 Billion on our Military alone, Saddam was crushed in'91 and Wolfowitz knew this was the real lies. The Bush administration cherry picked what they liked and ignored logic and common sense.


A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Exxon Mobil is a big behind the scenes player in the Iraq War by virtue of its support for AEI.

So the point is that the American Enterprise Institute symbolizes the intersection of Oil and War, which are the two most menacing threats to the future of America.

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. 24.251.115.172 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)David Hoover24.251.115.172 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ BBC and NPR interviews Google the internet

Scholars

There is a difference between staff and scholars. These are not interchangable. Like other institutions there are multiple roles, AEI has scholars and fellows, and officers, trustees, and staff. The refs identify the people involved as scholars not staff. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Centre right"

There is nothing "centre right" about libertarian anti-government ideology. Most non-partisan sources describe this organisation as right-wing, quite a few more critical sources describe it as far right (e.g. Noam Chomsky [9] and CNN [10]). Centre right, by definition, means European-style Christian democrats, for example, who are not at all anti-government or libertarian. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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"?

- zionism is a political ideology (quite a varied one at that - previously quite a left-leaning cause), not a term of abuse, even if critics of neoconservatism/israel et al band this term round a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.10.232 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

- "Zionist comes off as racist" How? Zionists use the word. It has a meaning; supporting a Jewish homeland. There's nothing controversial or even racist in and of that definition. Zionism/Zionist should be used where appropriate, and it's certainly appropriate to use when discussing an avowed Zionist. DesScorp (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on American Enterprise Institute. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on American Enterprise Institute. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on American Enterprise Institute. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Has been a unit of AEI for ten years. Marquardtika (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism and economic conservatism

@Franciscozvjeinbtu: in regards to this edit here [11], was there a reason you added libertarianism and economic conservatism? The addition makes sense to me, but I'm curious if you had a source for it? Thanks! Darthkayak (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Enterprise_Institute/Archive_1&oldid=1136290741"