Talk:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:20, 8 September 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,665 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Talk:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:19, 27 September 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,665 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research/Archive 1) (botNext edit →
Line 34:		Line 34:
	This question was discussed a few years ago (above) and since then the consensus has been to leave "right wing" out of the article. Moreover, the term has connotations that are negative/POV-laden. Since the mission of MI is presented in the article, readers are certainly free to use their own judgement when it comes to deciding (for themselves) if MI is "right-wing" or otherwise. – ] (]) 04:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)		This question was discussed a few years ago (above) and since then the consensus has been to leave "right wing" out of the article. Moreover, the term has connotations that are negative/POV-laden. Since the mission of MI is presented in the article, readers are certainly free to use their own judgement when it comes to deciding (for themselves) if MI is "right-wing" or otherwise. – ] (]) 04:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
	* I agree with the above. "Right-wing" is not an appropriate descriptor to include here. ] ] 02:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)		* I agree with the above. "Right-wing" is not an appropriate descriptor to include here. ] ] 02:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

	==NPOV==
	This article reads like a press release. It thoroughly violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. It is full of quotations that praise the writings, but there is no mention of the fact that many of the positions advocated are controversial or have been thoroughly debunked. For example, the section describing "broken windows" policing states that crime in NYC declined when Bratton was police chief, implying that the "broken windows" policy works, but neglects to mention that crime rates all over the country decrease at that time, and that C. R. Sridhar compared cities that used "broken windows" policing to cities that used other policies and concluded that "broken windows" did not in fact reduce crime. Similarly, reading this articlem a reader has no idea that "supply side" economics is widely regarded as more a rhetorical device for justifying tax cuts for the wealthy than a theory that accurately describes our economy. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==		== External links modified ==

Revision as of 01:19, 27 September 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis

In order to distinguish the Manhattan Institute from the Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis (www.manhattanpsychoanalysis.com) should I first create a listing for the organization? After which we can add redirectors from the MI listing and from the MIP listing that clarify the different organizations?

--cbelz

Right Wing?

I think calling something "Right Wing" rather than simply conservative has PoV issues. That aside, MI is generally known for concentrating on practical solutions to policy problems, rather than doctrinaire ideological positions. Calling MI "free-market" might be more accurate and fair. Scharferimage 04:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "free-market". I don't think "right wing" belongs because it's POV, imprecise and un-encyclopedic. What does "right wing" mean? Can you give a source for a definition? I might accept "conservative", but that's imprecise too. Nbauman 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Floyd Flake, Herman Badillo, or John McWhorter "right wing"? It just doesn't make sense here. Scharferimage 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MI isn't even conservative, it's capitalist, but I'm not going to win that fight so I'm leaving the lede alone. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Larry Siegel

My impression from reading this article is that the Manhattan Institute is a right wing outfit and that the article is written so as to avoid stating this explicitly. My response: tell it like it is. Make things clear. ---Dagme (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As a think tank, a registered 501(c)3, I don't think the Manhattan Institute can legally take partisan positions. Such orgs are typically restricted from doing so, and may only advance policy proposals and white papers from a results-oriented (cost-benefit, etc.) position without regard to explicit political affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.64.26 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This question was discussed a few years ago (above) and since then the consensus has been to leave "right wing" out of the article. Moreover, the term has connotations that are negative/POV-laden. Since the mission of MI is presented in the article, readers are certainly free to use their own judgement when it comes to deciding (for themselves) if MI is "right-wing" or otherwise. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "Right-wing" is not an appropriate descriptor to include here. bd2412 T 02:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150103225659/http://www.economist.com:80/debate/overview/158 to http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/158

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theatlantic.com/ideastour/archive/windows.mhtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509231323/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cau.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cau.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have confirmed the links. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: