This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why was the fact that Exxon didn't fund any global warming research deleted? -- TedFrank 01:25, 24 March 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. [2] 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)
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)
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 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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
You quote this page, which says, "The claim that the science of climate change is “settled” beyond dispute is belied by the almost-weekly publication of peer-reviewed research that is inconsistent with or directly contradicts the conventional narrative of catastrophic climate change."
First of all, if you look at that page in its entirety, it's clearly not a denier's heaven. The cited articles mostly support the essential propositions of global warming. This cherry-picked sentence taken out of context cannot support the proposition that they are "frequent critics of the prevailing scientific view of global warming."
It seems that they deny the climate change will be catastrophic. That seems consistent with the latest research, including the latest IPCC report. While the report removes all doubt that climate change is related to the burning of fossil fuels, it has taken some of the most of the catastrophic scenarios off the table—no turning off the gulf stream, for example. Climate change is man made, will be costly, and will probably kill many people, but it will not be catastrophic in the sense that scientists thought it might be possible a few years ago. From what I can tell, most of the AEI papers are actually agree with man-made climate change, including one of the papers cited against the IPCC. We should have an actual source that says they're frequent critics. Uncited original research is not enough. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's awfully strange that the 2009 McCain speech is mentioned, but the far more influential 5 January 2007 speeches by McCain and Lieberman introducing the idea of the surge are not. THF ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't this institute taken some interesting and notable positions on smoking and the tobacco industry? I don't know the facts/citations but they might be worth pointing out.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually it would be even more interesting to understand the AEI funding relationship with the tobacco industry in light of historic articles like [6].-- OMCV ( talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is not even a mention of the AEI's stances on Agricultural subsidies, in particular the farm bill. The AEI has taken very strong and direct stances in opposition to agricultural subsidies, see [7]. This seems very relevant/interesting, so I am going to start adding this material. Cazort ( talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
I've removed the adjective "non-partisan" from the description of AEI in the lead. While AEI may be non-partisan in the technical sense of having no formal party affiliation, it is generally understood as "partisan" in the sense of advocating a set of viewpoints identified with American conservatism. Our article on non-partisan actually has a nice explanation of this. Basically, I think it is a bit misleading to make a blanket statement that AEI is "non-partisan"; that's true in one technical sense of the word, but not as the word is more generally used. MastCell Talk 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read this article and the first paragraph of the introduction, which states The American Enterprise Institute [...] is a conservative think tank [...], contradicts with the first paragraph of the section Political stance, which says AEI is officially nonpartisan [...]. Wouldn't it be better if the first paragraph of the introduction stated The American Enterprise Institute [...] is an officially non-partisan think tank widely considered to be conservative [...]? Faunas ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Donnelly has been noisy lately (running for something?), so the CDS needs a mention and at least a redirect here.
http://www.defensestudies.org/contact-us/
Hcobb ( talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:V, which is after all core policy, is quite clear that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine). When describing this group, we should rely on reliable third-party descriptions as the basis of our article and lead. An organization's self-description can be mentioned, as long as it's clear that it's a self-description. The self-description should not be substituted for the content of reliable, independent sources, however. That's the difference between a press release and an encyclopedia, and it's part of policy. In that light, I've reverted this edit, but would welcome further (policy-based) discussion. MastCell Talk 03:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has changed the description to "(though officially nonpartisan)" in the lead. While I really don't have a problem with this change per se, several experienced editors have said that the standard in Wikipedia is self-description (where the self-description is not qualified and the third party descriptions are qualified). As I said before, I think that this standard should be reversed, but we should follow consistently in regard to all organizations whatever convention WP has. Drrll ( talk) 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you agree with Kim's edits to this article (as I do), then we should be done. I don't really understand why you keep mentioning unnamed "experienced admins" and their actions at other articles. If you have a problem with other articles, go to their talk pages. If you have a problem with an "experienced admin", see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Since it sounds like we both agree with Kim's edits, I'm not sure what else remains to be said in this venue. MastCell Talk 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Secret masters funding studies that support their own economic interests is an innately nonpartisan activity. They have a narrow focus on their own greed and probably don't even care about social issues. (If they took one moment to look at what their policies are doing to American families their hearts would crack.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
You are confusing ideology with political party. They are nonpartisan but ideological. Rather Republican Party, Constitutional Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party, right wing of the Democrat Party, or whatever it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The AEI is more a lobbying group for Israeli interests rather than an actual think tank. A think tank is something that analysis and puts forward ideas objectively, but the AEI works backwards from what is best for Israel. For example, recently AEI "scholar" Michael Rubin (surprise surprise, another Jew in the AEI) openly called for war on Iran for Israel's benefit. The AEI's essentially Israel-centered views have been called out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimOrienved ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklist(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
From AEI'S WEBSITE: "As a tax-exempt educational organization governed by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AEI is generally prohibited from attempting to influence legislation in the U.S. Congress or other legislative bodies."
501(c)(3) organizations are not required to disclose their donors.
From IRS website: "Is a tax-exempt organization required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors?
A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF). The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents. Contributor names and addresses listed on an exempt organization's exemption application are subject to disclosure, however."
FrancisDane ( talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The American Enterprise Institute is the most hawkish of the Washington "think tanks," and that its staffers were key to thinking up and promoting the Iraq War with lies and propaganda. I remember in the run up to the invasion Paul Wolfowitz was on NPR radio trying to sell the war. He used all the catch phrases of the neocons scare tactic like saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And “We know exactly where the WMDs are.“ When pressed by the NPR host, with the simple logic if he knows where the WMDs are, why won’t he tell the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors where to go look? His answer was it was “a matter of National Security”… We spent $450 Billion on our Military alone, Saddam was crushed in'91 and Wolfowitz knew this was the real lies. The Bush administration cherry picked what they liked and ignored logic and common sense.
So the point is that the American Enterprise Institute symbolizes the intersection of Oil and War, which are the two most menacing threats to the future of America. 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. 24.251.115.172 ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)David Hoover 24.251.115.172 ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [1] References
|
There is a difference between staff and scholars. These are not interchangable. Like other institutions there are multiple roles, AEI has scholars and fellows, and officers, trustees, and staff. The refs identify the people involved as scholars not staff. Capitalismojo ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 22 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing "centre right" about libertarian anti-government ideology. Most non-partisan sources describe this organisation as right-wing, quite a few more critical sources describe it as far right (e.g. Noam Chomsky [9] and CNN [10]). Centre right, by definition, means European-style Christian democrats, for example, who are not at all anti-government or libertarian. Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
- "Zionist comes off as racist" How? Zionists use the word. It has a meaning; supporting a Jewish homeland. There's nothing controversial or even racist in and of that definition. Zionism/Zionist should be used where appropriate, and it's certainly appropriate to use when discussing an avowed Zionist. DesScorp ( talk) 20:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 33 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.wallace-wells.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aei.org/paper/society-and-culture/why-tocqueville-on-china/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 25 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Has been a unit of AEI for ten years. Marquardtika ( talk) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Franciscozvjeinbtu: in regards to this edit here [11], was there a reason you added libertarianism and economic conservatism? The addition makes sense to me, but I'm curious if you had a source for it? Thanks! Darthkayak ( talk) 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why was the fact that Exxon didn't fund any global warming research deleted? -- TedFrank 01:25, 24 March 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. [2] 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)
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)
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 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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
You quote this page, which says, "The claim that the science of climate change is “settled” beyond dispute is belied by the almost-weekly publication of peer-reviewed research that is inconsistent with or directly contradicts the conventional narrative of catastrophic climate change."
First of all, if you look at that page in its entirety, it's clearly not a denier's heaven. The cited articles mostly support the essential propositions of global warming. This cherry-picked sentence taken out of context cannot support the proposition that they are "frequent critics of the prevailing scientific view of global warming."
It seems that they deny the climate change will be catastrophic. That seems consistent with the latest research, including the latest IPCC report. While the report removes all doubt that climate change is related to the burning of fossil fuels, it has taken some of the most of the catastrophic scenarios off the table—no turning off the gulf stream, for example. Climate change is man made, will be costly, and will probably kill many people, but it will not be catastrophic in the sense that scientists thought it might be possible a few years ago. From what I can tell, most of the AEI papers are actually agree with man-made climate change, including one of the papers cited against the IPCC. We should have an actual source that says they're frequent critics. Uncited original research is not enough. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's awfully strange that the 2009 McCain speech is mentioned, but the far more influential 5 January 2007 speeches by McCain and Lieberman introducing the idea of the surge are not. THF ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hasn't this institute taken some interesting and notable positions on smoking and the tobacco industry? I don't know the facts/citations but they might be worth pointing out.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually it would be even more interesting to understand the AEI funding relationship with the tobacco industry in light of historic articles like [6].-- OMCV ( talk) 03:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently, there is not even a mention of the AEI's stances on Agricultural subsidies, in particular the farm bill. The AEI has taken very strong and direct stances in opposition to agricultural subsidies, see [7]. This seems very relevant/interesting, so I am going to start adding this material. Cazort ( talk) 14:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
I've removed the adjective "non-partisan" from the description of AEI in the lead. While AEI may be non-partisan in the technical sense of having no formal party affiliation, it is generally understood as "partisan" in the sense of advocating a set of viewpoints identified with American conservatism. Our article on non-partisan actually has a nice explanation of this. Basically, I think it is a bit misleading to make a blanket statement that AEI is "non-partisan"; that's true in one technical sense of the word, but not as the word is more generally used. MastCell Talk 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read this article and the first paragraph of the introduction, which states The American Enterprise Institute [...] is a conservative think tank [...], contradicts with the first paragraph of the section Political stance, which says AEI is officially nonpartisan [...]. Wouldn't it be better if the first paragraph of the introduction stated The American Enterprise Institute [...] is an officially non-partisan think tank widely considered to be conservative [...]? Faunas ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Donnelly has been noisy lately (running for something?), so the CDS needs a mention and at least a redirect here.
http://www.defensestudies.org/contact-us/
Hcobb ( talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:V, which is after all core policy, is quite clear that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine). When describing this group, we should rely on reliable third-party descriptions as the basis of our article and lead. An organization's self-description can be mentioned, as long as it's clear that it's a self-description. The self-description should not be substituted for the content of reliable, independent sources, however. That's the difference between a press release and an encyclopedia, and it's part of policy. In that light, I've reverted this edit, but would welcome further (policy-based) discussion. MastCell Talk 03:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
An editor has changed the description to "(though officially nonpartisan)" in the lead. While I really don't have a problem with this change per se, several experienced editors have said that the standard in Wikipedia is self-description (where the self-description is not qualified and the third party descriptions are qualified). As I said before, I think that this standard should be reversed, but we should follow consistently in regard to all organizations whatever convention WP has. Drrll ( talk) 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you agree with Kim's edits to this article (as I do), then we should be done. I don't really understand why you keep mentioning unnamed "experienced admins" and their actions at other articles. If you have a problem with other articles, go to their talk pages. If you have a problem with an "experienced admin", see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Since it sounds like we both agree with Kim's edits, I'm not sure what else remains to be said in this venue. MastCell Talk 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Secret masters funding studies that support their own economic interests is an innately nonpartisan activity. They have a narrow focus on their own greed and probably don't even care about social issues. (If they took one moment to look at what their policies are doing to American families their hearts would crack.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
You are confusing ideology with political party. They are nonpartisan but ideological. Rather Republican Party, Constitutional Party, Reform Party, Libertarian Party, right wing of the Democrat Party, or whatever it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 ( talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The AEI is more a lobbying group for Israeli interests rather than an actual think tank. A think tank is something that analysis and puts forward ideas objectively, but the AEI works backwards from what is best for Israel. For example, recently AEI "scholar" Michael Rubin (surprise surprise, another Jew in the AEI) openly called for war on Iran for Israel's benefit. The AEI's essentially Israel-centered views have been called out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimOrienved ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklist(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
From AEI'S WEBSITE: "As a tax-exempt educational organization governed by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AEI is generally prohibited from attempting to influence legislation in the U.S. Congress or other legislative bodies."
501(c)(3) organizations are not required to disclose their donors.
From IRS website: "Is a tax-exempt organization required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors?
A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF). The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents. Contributor names and addresses listed on an exempt organization's exemption application are subject to disclosure, however."
FrancisDane ( talk) 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The American Enterprise Institute is the most hawkish of the Washington "think tanks," and that its staffers were key to thinking up and promoting the Iraq War with lies and propaganda. I remember in the run up to the invasion Paul Wolfowitz was on NPR radio trying to sell the war. He used all the catch phrases of the neocons scare tactic like saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And “We know exactly where the WMDs are.“ When pressed by the NPR host, with the simple logic if he knows where the WMDs are, why won’t he tell the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors where to go look? His answer was it was “a matter of National Security”… We spent $450 Billion on our Military alone, Saddam was crushed in'91 and Wolfowitz knew this was the real lies. The Bush administration cherry picked what they liked and ignored logic and common sense.
So the point is that the American Enterprise Institute symbolizes the intersection of Oil and War, which are the two most menacing threats to the future of America. 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. 24.251.115.172 ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)David Hoover 24.251.115.172 ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [1] References
|
There is a difference between staff and scholars. These are not interchangable. Like other institutions there are multiple roles, AEI has scholars and fellows, and officers, trustees, and staff. The refs identify the people involved as scholars not staff. Capitalismojo ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 22 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing "centre right" about libertarian anti-government ideology. Most non-partisan sources describe this organisation as right-wing, quite a few more critical sources describe it as far right (e.g. Noam Chomsky [9] and CNN [10]). Centre right, by definition, means European-style Christian democrats, for example, who are not at all anti-government or libertarian. Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
- "Zionist comes off as racist" How? Zionists use the word. It has a meaning; supporting a Jewish homeland. There's nothing controversial or even racist in and of that definition. Zionism/Zionist should be used where appropriate, and it's certainly appropriate to use when discussing an avowed Zionist. DesScorp ( talk) 20:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 33 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.wallace-wells.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aei.org/paper/society-and-culture/why-tocqueville-on-china/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 25 external links on American Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Has been a unit of AEI for ten years. Marquardtika ( talk) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Franciscozvjeinbtu: in regards to this edit here [11], was there a reason you added libertarianism and economic conservatism? The addition makes sense to me, but I'm curious if you had a source for it? Thanks! Darthkayak ( talk) 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)