Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Auger shell (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 22 September 2007 (→added critique above Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

This is why I'm reverting WL's edit:

• MI had nothing to do with The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was written in 1994. Murray left MI in 1990, precisely because MI support his research in this area, as even this anti-Murray piece notes.
• There is no evidence that "Fixing Broken Windows" says blacks are intellectually inferior.
• "Predominantly white and male" may be true, but it is original research, contrary to Misplaced Pages standards. It's also true for Brookings, Center for American Progress, ATLA, MoveOn, and the Democratic Party members of the Senate. Why single out MI?
• MI is so affiliated with the Republican Party that its most famous scholar publicly came out against Bush in the last election.
• All of the edits are POV.
• All of the claims are uncited.
• WL added an extraneous bracket and capitalization.

FRCP11 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs restructuring / re-write

The article as written contains bad structure that leans towards POV, and contains uncited criticism, praise and an off-topic pot-shot.

The paragraph:

"According to People for the American Way, the Manhattan Institute has attacked minority-focused policies including affirmative action, civil rights initiatives, and immigrant support programs as obstacles to full social integration and to the benefits of the market system. The Institute heavily promotes school vouchers, saying that competition as the best way to improve public schools"

serves no purpose than to articulate a critique of the Manhattan Institute on the basis of a second subject that is not the subject of the article. Its postion near the beginning of the article, without subheading as "Criticism" in and of itself constitutes POV. Finally, the entire critique is without citation.

Concerning the paragraphs:

"The Manhattan Instititute issued a report by Frank Lichtenberg..."

"Paul Krugman came to the opposite conclusion..."

Presenting this issue seems to be a setup to deliver the reference to Mr. Krugman's opposition, which is barely topical in that the cited article by Mr. Krugman does not contain a specific critique of the Manhattan Instutute on behalf of this issue, or in general. Both these paragraphs would be more at home in an article about VA medical care issues.

The Manhattan Institute's position on issues would be better articulated in an "Issues & Positions" subheading, and refutations of the Manhattan Institute's positions should be in a "Criticisms" section, and should contain only articles that make direct reference to the Manhattan Institute's positions, not just any old article that takes an opposing view. Otherwise this article becomes a battle of the POVs about the issues addressed by the Manhatan Institute.

The paragraph containing the Guiliani quote is just plain sloppy-- the quote is lifted right off the marketing barkers of the City Journal's home page, where it is also unsourced. The NYTimes quote that ends this paragrpah needs a citation.

Auger shell 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Funding sources

user:66.234.233.50, why did you remove my section on funding sources? Nbauman 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a New York, NY IP address. Might be somebody from the Institute who doesn't want it to be public, or an MI supporter or something. Pure conjecture on my part I suppose. To answer your unstated question (judging by this talk page's history), I didn't pull it. I'd have no problem with funding sources being in the article. To me that's not a PoV issue, although I know it's been reverted by others in the past. Scharferimage 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the same conjecture, and I did the same whois search. (I originally thought from my misreading of the article history that it was deleted in your revision; my mistake.) I think it's significant, since it tells you where they're coming from in a more NPOV way than "conservative" or "free-market". I think it's POV to not include it. I'll restore it. Nbauman 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. I am 66.234.233.50. Nothing personal. Mostly a sourcing issue. I think given the clear agenda of "sourcewatch", it becomes a PoV issue. At least in my book. I mean, geez, why not go all the way and use Media Matters as a source? Misplaced Pages sure presents some interesting challenges...

I used Sourcewatch because (1) I've never heard of Sourcewatch being inaccurate (2) they cited their source (3) The Manhattan Institute doesn't disclose their financial sources, even though they're a 501(c)(3) organization (4) I've seen similar figures in a law journal article, although I can't find the citation right now (5) If I ever hear of the Manhattan Institute or anyone else challenging those statements, I will add it to the entry, and I invite you or anyone else to do so -- and of course you must follow the Misplaced Pages rules of providing a reliable source.

Thank you for thinking skeptically.

P.S. the custom here is to sign your postings with 4 tildes ~~~~ Nbauman 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Health Care

Scharferimage, I saw a letter by Zycher on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, so I looked him up online. I thought this discussion of health policies by 2 of the Manattan Institute's scholars on health care, specifically Medicare Part D, was important and a good way to describe the Manhattan Institute's policies by showing what they do in a specific case, rather than applying subjective adjectives like "right wing" or "conservative". If they advocate free-market solutions, this is what that idea means in its specific application.

I've read a lot of Manhattan Institute articles and reports, and this is typical of what they do, in that it is a free-market approach, they sponsored research, they published editorials, etc. People who agree with this position should know the Manhattan Institute's reasons for supporting this position. People who disagree with them should also know how the Manhattan Institute disagrees with them.

Could you state exactly what your objection is to this? I would agree that we should expand it with more examples of other Manhattan Institute policies, but I don't understand why you want to delete it entirely. Nbauman 15:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having the Krugman rebuttal in at the end in an article this short, but that aside I think that quoting a single paper by two scholars at what is by no means the most visible policy tank at MI doesn't adequately represent the views of the Institute as a whole. I plan on greatly expanding this article within a month or so, once I have some damn time, but I suppose until then there's really no point in bickering about this. Can we agree on excluding the Krugman rebuttal but keeping in the details of the Part D policy paper? Scharferimage 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Krugman's rebuttal is necessary to keep the entry NPOV, which according to WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." The Manhattan Institute, which is funded by the industry, has a right to make free-market and pro-industry arguments, but people who want to know about the Manhattan Institute would want to know both sides of the argument so that they can make up their own minds. That's the point in having the Krugman rebuttal. Do you agree with that? Nbauman 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV requires that sort of in-article rebuttal. As long as it's clear that the view expressed is an opinion rather than fact, you shouldn't have to add more. Even if you think a rebuttal of some kind is necessary, your Krugman paragraph is about 50% as long as the view being rebutted, which seems excessive. Could we compromise with something like, "Some scholars, Paul Krugman most notably, have disputed Zycher and Lichtenberg's findings."? Scharferimage 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An in-article rebuttal is the essence of WP:NPOV.

It takes some length to explain the Manhattan Institute's position on something as complicated as Medicare Part D. Otherwise, all you have is a bullet-point list asserting their positions. To give both points of view, you have to give both points of view -- you can't just dismiss the other POV with "Some scholars, like Paul Krugman, disagree." Lichtenberg claims, based on indirect extrapolations that haven't been published in an academic journal, that patients have died as a result of the VA's policies. It would be dishonest to the reader not to tell them that other studies find that patients have not died as Lichtenberg claims. That's both POVs. And Krugman is a significant POV.

That's what the WSJ does. They printed a letter by Marcia Angell about drug regulation, and then they printed a rebuttal from Zycher. That's the way newspapers, academic publications, medical publications, legal writing, and any other responsible writing works.

If you filled up a page describing Manhattan Institute without describing their positions, it wouldn't tell anything meaningful about the Manhattan Institute. If you filled it up describing their positions without also giving the other POV, it would be propaganda or advertising WP:NOT#SOAP which is also prohibited on Misplaced Pages. And WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." Nbauman 20:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken on the NPOV issues, I think you're right on the substantive issues as they apply to this article. However, I'm still deeply uneasy with the weight given to this particular dispute within the article here. About half the text of the article is now taken up by this Zycher-Krugman dispute, which really has little bearing on the Manhattan Institute as an organization. Segmenting it under a "Center for Medical Policy" subheading, with a view towards further articulating the article by filling in details about policy suggestions coming out of all of MI's subsidiary Centers might be an effective way of resolving this dispute. Not sure about the specific application, but isn't devoting half of the article on MI to one particular policy dispute out of potentially dozens or hundreds an Undue Weight infringement? Scharferimage 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The solution to giving undue weight to one particular policy is to add other policies. I think that would be a good way to organize it. We don't have to (and can't) include every area the Manhattan Institute works in, just a representative sampling. You're right about the subheads. Nbauman 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to start subheads or should I? You're probably the more experienced editor here. Should we make subheads for each MI center, and just list all unexpanded ones as sub-stubs? What's the convention here? Scharferimage 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can do it. Be my guest. Just make a subhead for the health center, or for "Health policy". But don't make subheads for sections that aren't written yet. Nbauman 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get on it within a day or so. Scharferimage 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)