This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Enterprise Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American Enterprise Institute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)