Talk:The American Interest

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please note inaccuracy within the first few words of the article. The American Interest can not be both non-partisan and a conservative magazine at the same time. Article is classified under the conservatism project, and it's own references identify it as a conservative publication. These references nullify claims of non-partisanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.198.169 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While I find the magazine's articles interesting - they are not non-partisan. The author bios tend to dovetail to classic conservative think tanks and party positions when back-traced. None of which is acknowledged on their website that doesn't even have an about page. 110.32.19.166 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - The "Statement of Purpose" section refers to a primary reference that no longer exists. So I'm removing both the section and the reference as unverifiable; and on the weight remaining evidence switching the magazine description from non-partisan to some flavour of classical conservatism. 58.111.83.23 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article is terrible. I enjoy reading partisan and nonpartisan content, but this magazine is very obviously partisan. Not just conservative, but leaning neoconservative. So the article page is not fully informative. --100.4.146.133 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement

The information here doesn't seem to be analytical. It reads like an advertisement for the magazine. Note where it says "Contributors to the journal are predominantly already established (rather than up-and-coming) commentators known for their expertise in international affairs, global strategy, and military matters." and then cites the magazine itself as the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.224.8 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]