Jump to content

Talk:Aspen Institute

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

Cleanup tags

[edit]

I've added the {{advert}} and {{Not verified}} tags, as the article reads like a brochure, including but not by any means limited to:

  • common ground and deeper understanding in a nonpartisan and nonideological setting
  • The Institute supports 20 policy programs and partnerships directed by leading policymakers and practitioners
  • 'While each is unique in substance and approach, Aspen Institute policy programs all share a common mission and methodology. Each serves as an impartial forum for proven leaders in a given field bringing a diversity of perspectives together in pursuit of informed dialogue and effective action.

I haven't gone to the institutes's website, but based on the lack of citations, I suspect much of it is copied verbatim. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that while the Institute may well be "non-partisan," there is no evidence to support its claim of "non ideological," and plenty of evidence to the contrary on their web site cited above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.111.108 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the tags are gone. What a surprise. I came here just to check on that, because "a nonpartisan forum for values-based leadership and the exchange of ideas." is certainly not encyclopedic, but simple ad copy. But that's how how neoliberal masters work. --jae (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The {{advert}} tag seems to have been removed in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspen_Institute&oldid=323313686">this edit</a> in 2009 by an IP address whose edit history looks almost entirely connected with figures in Washington, DC, particularly the President of the Aspen Institute, Walter Isaacson. I'm not going to reinstate the tag myself because I'm not trying to start an edit war, but I do think this issue needs attention. For an encyclopedic article to claim that an entity--any entity, to say nothing of a well-funded think tank such as this--could be "nonideological" is laughable. You don't need to major in political science to know that. 2600:8806:4201:3A00:831:8C97:238D:8517 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Institute names top 120 community colleges

[edit]

I'm just parking this list here to assist in updating these articles:
































"Red Link" pointing to "Wye River Conference Centers"

[edit]

References (here in this section) to specific parts of this article, are based upon the current version of this article ("as of" 10:28, 26 October 2015‎), which is also known as title=Aspen_Institute&oldid=687611648 this version.

By the time you read this, that might no longer be the current ["latest"] version of the article -- so, some things may have changed.

There is a "Red-Link" in the article, pointing to "Wye River Conference Centers". It is located in the "History" section of the article ("Aspen_Institute#History").

I intend to fix that, but first I would like to get some advice (or "consensus") about which method would be best.

Two methods that I could think of:

  1. Just change the WikiText that now says

    "[[Wye River Conference Centers]]"

    to instead say

    "[[Aspen Institute Wye River Conference Centers]]";

    OR:
  2. Instead, create a new "#redirect" page, which would have a NAME of

    "Wye River Conference Centers",

    and would "#redirect" to [the (already) "existing" article]

    "Aspen Institute Wye River Conference Centers".

"NOTE" that the first option would NOT require creating any new articles, nor any new pages in "article space";

On the other hand, maybe this red link was "created" when there was a "rename" that occurred, without fixing all of the "resulting" red links, either by (a) creating a "#redirect" page, or by (b) editing each of the "from" articles still containing links to the "OLD name" -- (and apparently there is at least one of them!: ... namely, this article!)

IMHO, if this red link was "created" by the occurrence of such a "rename", then [indeed] the second option might "be less work" ... so, maybe it would "make sense".

Any other ideas? OR, any "votes" for #1 or #2? OR, any other "comments"? :-) ! Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graph colors

[edit]

Someone should consider changing the colors of the revenue/expenses graphs. Most notably the expenses graph. It uses all different shades of blue, which not only is very difficult to decipher for a normal-sighted user, but it would be virtually impossible for colorblind users. 72.24.140.235 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aspen_Institute&oldid=1250289003"