Talk:American Enterprise Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Enterprise Institute article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1]
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)

[edit] 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.[2] -- 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.[3] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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"?[5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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".[6] ·:· 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)