Talk:American Enterprise Institute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Michael Novak

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

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."

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

Dean1970 July 06, 2006.

Article heavily biased and far from neutral

This article is heavily biased and just looks as if it was written by someone of the AEI. Instead of neutral sources or academic research, it relies extremely on statements of the AEI, and even if neutral sources are used, there are lengthy explanations, why those sources have gotten it wrong. That's not how you write an Wikipedia article. For example just read the paragraph "Energy and environmental policy". It uses sources 61 and 69-78. With the exeption of 73 EVERY SINGLE SOURCE is from the AEI! Are you kidding me? Wikipedia is not external webspace nor a propaganda plattform for the AEI! Then of course it is no wonder that the paragraph argues that the AEI is pro-environmental with a bit shaky position on climate change. This is a complete distortion of reality. Because if you look into academic papers, the AEI is regarded as staunch anti-environmental and one of the leading climate change denial organization, which has launched disinformation campaigns for 2-3 decades now. However, if you only read and cite the AEI publications, then it's impossible to correctly or neutrally describe that organization. So I urge you to correct that, even it that could mean writing that article for new. Because in the present state it is a shame for Wikipedia. You cannot write an article about an neutral or correct article about an highly controversial organization, if you only let them speak for themselves and just copy all their talking points uncritically. There is a reason why Wikipedia articles should rely on neutral secondary sources. Andol (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Article heavily biased and far from neutral

This article is heavily biased and just looks as if it was written by someone of the AEI. Instead of neutral sources or academic research, it relies extremely on statements of the AEI, and even if neutral sources are used, there are lengthy explanations, why those sources have gotten it wrong. That's not how you write an Wikipedia article. For example just read the paragraph "Energy and environmental policy". It uses sources 61 and 69-78. With the exeption of 73 EVERY SINGLE SOURCE is from the AEI! Are you kidding me? Wikipedia is not external webspace nor a propaganda plattform for the AEI! Then of course it is no wonder that the paragraph argues that the AEI is pro-environmental with a bit shaky position on climate change. This is a complete distortion of reality. Because if you look into academic papers, the AEI is regarded as staunch anti-environmental and one of the leading climate change denial organization, which has launched disinformation campaigns for 2-3 decades now. However, if you only read and cite the AEI publications, then it's impossible to correctly or neutrally describe that organization. So I urge you to correct that, even it that could mean writing that article for new. Because in the present state it is a shame for Wikipedia. You cannot write an article about an neutral or correct article about an highly controversial organization, if you only let them speak for themselves and just copy all their talking points uncritically. There is a reason why Wikipedia articles should rely on neutral secondary sources. Andol (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding in this sentence in intro

The sentence says, "Founded in 1938, AEI is commonly associated with conservatism and neoconservatism, although it is officially non-partisan in that it does not support a political party." AEI is a 501(c)(3) organization. 501(c)(3) organizations are forbidden to support political parties. Supporting or opposing a political party or otherwise engaging in partisan politics has nothing to do the issue set that a 501(c)(3) organization might take on, or the positions it might take on those issues. A 501c3 is allowed to advance the thought that climate change is bad and something needs to be done about it. A 501c3 is allowed to advance the thought that climate change is made up or not a problem. Etc. for all the other policies. Taking a position on a policy is not the same as supporting or opposing a political party, at least as far as the IRS (which is the boss of 501c3s) thinks of it. This sentence jumbles up the act of having policy positions that are associated with conservativism with partisanship. There's no "although" about it, in other words. They are a 501c3 non-partisan organization (at least until/unless the IRS says they aren't). The fact that they may or may not be right-of-center in the policy positions they take is unrelated to that. I propose to rewrite the sentence but thought I would drop this note here first. Beingafactoid (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What would the re-written sentence say? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The law is about supporting candidates, not partisanship. SPECIFICO talk 06:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Really not helpful for you to do a blind revert without responding to my clear explanation above. There's nothing in the 501(c)(3) about taking policy or analysis positions. It's a prohibition on lobbying and supporting electoral campaigns. Please be responsive here. I fixed the problem identified above, on which you commented, and you don't appear to fully understand the issue. Kindly undo your blind revert or provide a detailed explanation of your sourced and reasoned objection, if any. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll take up the matter of my conduct on your talk page. With regard to the revert, the reason for the revert was that the edit summaries misrepresented the reverted changes, not that they were substantively wrong. Feel free to restore your changes with edit summaries that identify your changes, for example, something like "The law is about supporting candidates, not partisanship" or "see talk" instead of "ce" and "remove 'grants' as redundant" instead of "m." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but a hasty edit summary for an uncontroversial improvement of obviously false article text is not a problem. Reverting such an edit because you feel the edit summary could have been better -- that's not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Members, Personnel, board of directors

A lot of this article is spent listing people in AEI, in three different sections, with three different formats. Almost everyone mentioned has an article, so I think it should all be included, but maybe condensed into a single section. Not sure exactly how the formatting should be, though. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

History - better way to organize?

User:Ashmoo moved a couple of the controversy sections to History, as per WP:CRIT I'm assuming. It's probably the right move, but the history section is so bloated already. Brookings Institution#History is just divided into two sections, and keeps the history section at a high level summary. I think that would work better here. There's a lot of fat that could be cut entirely, or moved to something like a section on policies, publications, etc. Obviously the presidents should be discussed in history, but I don't think a separate subheading is needed for each one. That's cluttered.

Perhaps History could be divided into: 1938-1954, 1954-1986, 1986-2008, and 2008-today. Four subsections instead of six. I'll make this edit at some point if nobody objects. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the bloat. I moved the text to get rid of the Controversy section (which almost always make WP articles worse). But I have not attached to any of the text and I agree the history section has a lot of unnecessary text. Ashmoo (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing

AEI engages in climate denial, yet no mention of this is made in the relevant section.[1] Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections into one. Lots of work needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

In 1964, William J. Baroody Sr., and several of his top staff at AEI, including Karl Hess, moonlighted as policy advisers and speechwriters for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. "Even though Baroody and his staff sought to support Goldwater on their own time—without using the institution's resources—AEI came under close scrutiny from the IRS in the years following the campaign," Andrew Rich writes. Representative Wright Patman subpoenaed the institute's tax papers, and the IRS investigated for two years. After this, AEI's officers scrupulously attempted to avoid even the appearance of political advocacy.

Historian Kim Phillips-Fein says the investigation took place in 1950 in her book Invisible Hands (2009), so this sounds like a second investigation with no mention of the first. Also the bit about avoiding the appearance of political advocacy is laying it on a bit thick, don't you think? This org was founded as an advocacy group for corporate America. Political advocacy favoring their interests is its entire, fundamental purpose. Furthermore, Phillips-Fein lays out the case (as do many other authors), that political advocacy was and is the entire goal of AEI. Denying this as the article does is a severe insult and slap in the face to the reader and should in all likelihood be removed. Also, this idea that they "research government, politics, economics, and social welfare" seems to redefine the entire practice of research, as they start with a conclusion and work their way backwards. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Trump

It is unusual that AEI makes no mention of Trump's anti-free enterprise position as highlighted by historian Lawrence B. Glickman in his book Free Enterprise: An American History (2019, pp. 257-263). One would think an organization dedicated to free enterprise might lodge some criticism towards those who denigrate it. Perhaps AEI has moved on to other concerns? Viriditas (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)