Talk:Peterson Institute for International Economics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

Can experts please include some critical thinking in this article?

The Board of Directors is a "Who's Who" of banksters and other finance industry crooks. ---Dagme (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article indicates that Pete Peterson wasn't a founder. Why the name, then? 184.0.94.83 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pete Peterson has been the largest single contributor to the Institute (not including donations from corporations, charitable organization, etc.). I currently work at the Institute as a research analyst. Is it against the principals of Wikipedia for me to edit this page? I know you aren't suppose to edit your own page, but I have never found any guidance about your employer. On the one hand, the conflict of interest is obvious; on the other, you know a lot of relevant information about the place you work. Mvieiro (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you post your information here on the talk page (with references) another wikipedian could check it and add to the page? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

To address a seeming lack insight into (or criticism of) this pro-market, neo-CON outfit, could there be a heading on the Board of Directors titled: A "Who's Who" of Banksters and other Finance Industry Crooks'? 92.24.233.185 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No. And please do not change section headings to reflect such a point of view. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

POV

Seems slanted, like ad copy.

Is it actually nonpartisan? In whose opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)‎

PIIE Denmark policy briefing

We see material on a PIIE Denmark policy briefing that has been injected into the article the times ( [1] & [2] & [3] ) by two IPs in Denmark. This material needs removal for at least two reasons: 1. the IPs who are adding it are including their own un-sourced analysis as to the import of the briefing; and 2. the inclusion of this one briefing, out of the many that PIIE produces, is WP:UNDUE. PIIE a "key institution" according to the 2014 McGann report and is ranked number 1 in the International Economic Policy Think Tanks see Table 23. The IPs are asked to accept this fact and to comply with WP policy regarding original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. If there is material which criticizes the Denmark policy briefing, it needs to be woven into the article in an encyclopedic fashion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

1) There is no unsourced material, all material is documented.

2) Even if PIIE is the second coming of Christ, you are a still allowed to state facts, and what ever ranking someone must hold is not a valid argument to suppress facts, suppressing fact is also known as censorship.

Srich keeps writing about No original research, but disregards that every sentence is backed by Wikipedia articles and by the Policy Brief it self, you could argue that Srich haven't read the policy and is expressing his opinion as self-govern.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.80.42 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. The only documentation is for the policy briefing itself. Your own opinion starts with "The policy briefing totally disregards ...." Adding wikilinks to the statement is not documenting it. (Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS. Also, the policy briefing is an INDUE bit of material. This article is about the PIIE itself and adding a paragraph about one briefing is not good encyclopedia writing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NYT column

Here's a column from the New York Times that refers to the Peterson Institute as "the locker room of the Team Globalization and Free Trade cheering squad." This column gives a better idea of what the Peterson Institute is all about than the current entry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/whats-our-duty-to-the-people-globalization-leaves-behind.html
What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?
Steven Rattner
The New York Times
JAN. 26, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete "The institute's Building"

I propose that we delete the section on "The institute's Building."

For one thing, none of the sources meet WP:RS, since they come from the Peterson Institute's own PR material, and aren't independent third-party sources. In other words, it's WP:OR.

But most of all, it's PR fluff that is useless to anyone who is interested in the Peterson Institute's actual policies and contributions to society, which is what this entry should really be about. --Nbauman (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While PIIE is the source, the facts asserted can be checked and verified. This overcomes the RS problem. Also, the info is noteworthy, albeit not so much text is needed. (At the moment, though, the piie website is not linking, so additional verification is not possible.) I'd say keep, but trim it down to a summary style presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy under wp:weight unless multiple independent sources have reported it. There are so many more important things to write about the Peterson Institute. Globalization affects everyone. The Peterson Institute's architecture doesn't affect anyone who doesn't work in the Peterson Institute. --Nbauman (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, (1) This section has no WP:RS. The source is a dead link. (2) Even if it were an active link, it is to a primary source, the Peterson Institute itself, and WP:RS requires secondary sources. If architectural magazines had an articles about it, that would justify including it, but it seems to fail the noteworthy test. How do you justify its noteworthiness? --Nbauman (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)