Talk:Brookings Institution

Untitled

I changed this entry to reflect what I found about this thinktank's place on the political spectrum, since that's what I was looking for when I first accessed it. Vanu 20:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Center-right?

Brookins is considered center or center left, however heritage is clearly conservative, so call them center right is fairly generous. Just look at their own site's self-description:

http://www.heritage.org/about/

Also the wiki on Heritage describes it as conservative:

Similarly with AEI, it is clearly conservative (Lynne Cheney is a senior fellow, Muth, the President worked for Reagan, etc.)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4456

Compare to Brooking's about and description in sourcewatch:

http://www.brook.edu/index/about.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution

--OneWorld22 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Has the term "Neo-Liberal" gone out of style? 97.91.190.78 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Except in the modern partisan attempt to twist things, "Conservative" means "Centrist"--it favors the staus quo, rather than moving toward the right or toward the left. Of course, with the left-leaning point of view of Wikipedia, it's probably appropriate to add a dash of distortion of that meaning, so "center-right" is probably the best way to bias things. 71.200.35.243 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Funders list accurate?

Why are none of the foundations listed under Funders listed on Media Transparency's page for Brookings Institution (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=570)? --Slark 21:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I agree, the list of "major" funders in this article is very inaccurate. The major funders are: Alfred and Gail Engelberg Ford Foundation Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Government of the State of Qatar The Rockefeller Foundation Haim and Cheryl Saban Leonard D. Schaeffer John L. Thornton James D. Wolfensohn

These contributors all gave over $1M. By contrast, the government of Japan (through the Japan Foundation) gave less than $100K. So why list Japan as a major contributor? --Westwind273 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Nixon want to fire bomb this place?

Didn't Nixon want to fire bomb this place?

see

• http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Nixon_any_means.html
• http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/richard-m-nixon/
• http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t4523.html
• http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436
• http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/26/nixon.tapes/

GangofOne 01:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently so. NARA just released more Nixon tapes.

"I can't have a high-minded lawyer ... I want a son-of-a-b----. I want someone just as tough as I am. ... We're up against an enemy, a conspiracy that will use any means. We are going to use any means... . Get it done. I want it done. I want the Brookings Institution cleaned out and have it cleaned out in a way that has somebody else take the blame."

• http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/02/1695418.aspx

Sofa King (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Orientation

I took out the word "liberal" from the introductory paragraph, although it is true that many of the people who work there are "liberal". However, it is 1) officially non-partisan, 2) has some conservative people on staff as well, and 3) its political orientation is complicated and has its own section below. Sound good? Thanks, Afelton 17:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Independent seems to be a more accurate description. "A Measure of Media Bias" by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, September 2003, quite definitively shows that Brookings research is cited with equal frequency by Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Is there a better test?

I'd like to see a footnote citation for this after the word independent at the beginning of the article.--Evil1987 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant, but that's a very poor test. Many times Republicans will refer to their studies with "Even the liberal Brookings Institution found..." or will cite the findings while disagreeing with the conclusions. The 2012 GOP Presidential Primary campaign gave us clear examples of this. The Brookings Institution is both ideologically liberal and politically independent of parties—they are not mutually exclusive.

I agree that "independent" is the best descriptor. Brookings is the only think tank without an institutional point of view, and the only one I know of to hire both Democrats and Republicans (Kenneth Dam, Ron Haskins, Mark McClellan and Peter Rodman, to name a few.)Annoyed2 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Most think tanks that I know hire both Democrats and Republicans. Most are non-partisan organizations for tax reasons. Morphh ^(talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right—"nonpartisan" does not means "unbiased". Many highly boiased organizations are "non-partisan" and don't take part in election endorsements but still advocate one side of policy issues. 71.200.35.243 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also on Political Orientation

I don't think that the link to MediaTransparency is fair and balanced, as it is looking only at conservative research funders. Perhaps there is a better link on funders that presents things in a more balanced light?

More on Political Orientation

I removed "Nevertheless, Brookings is widely acclaimed for its intellectual rigor and pragmatic approach to a wide range of policy issues." Unsupported claim.

Even more on Political Orientation

FAIR is one of a number of organizations that characterizes the political leanings of the Brookings Institution. Why is FAIR the only one in the article whose OWN political leanings are mentioned? This looks like bias to me - seems to be a veiled attempt to cast doubt on the organization's characterization of Brookings. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms

For WP:NPOV, this article should have a "Criticisms" section. I'm not familar with the organization enough to know what criticism they have recieved but doing what they do.. I'm sure it is out there. Morphh 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

introduction

the introduction needs some info - what is it? a non-profit corporation? funded by who?

Nixon's "Hit List"

I have removed the section regarding the Nixon administration as it is highly questionable regarding NPOV and has a dubious source. Nicholasink 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment about NPOV is flatly wrong, and the sourcing issue was trivial to fix. Raul654 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hamilton Project

I just finished reading an article in The Nation by James K. Galbraith in which he repeatedly refers to The Hamilton Project as a focal point in economic policy.

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the principles put forth by the Project can add an entry about this seemingly important position. 67.102.1.234 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Floydian

There is a WP article on The Hamilton Project. I have added a merge template to the top and directed the discussion here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hamilton_Project

Sandeylife (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Thread retitled from "This reads like a brochure".

this whole entry reads like some brochure you'd pick up at their office. perhaps a bit of a more neutral or dispassionate rewrite is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhatkj (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed to liberal

Any one-eyed jackaninny would realize that the Brookings Institution is a slightly left-leaning (aka liberal) think tank. I changed the introduction to a more accurate one. --Rotten 05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the word "liberal". However, I did not revert it to saying it was "independent". I'd like to see citations to some reliable sources before any such label is affixed, since obviously it would seem to be a bone of contention. Also, I'm not sure slightly left-leaning is the same as liberal. --Evil1987 13:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The UCLA study mentioned in the article clearly states that the BI is liberal, as did the magazine article I cited (which is old, but should still be relevant). --Rotten 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the quote and mention of Time (which I didn't think looked right in the lead) and called it "traditionally considered liberal", which I think is fair considering the source is almost 30 years old. I haven't had a chance to look at the UCLA study cited on the page yet, but I would say if it calls the think tank liberal, then add another footnote there (i.e. in the lead) and call it a "liberal think tank" (taking out the part about "traditionally considered"). --Evil1987 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We probably need to clarify this as "traditionally considered liberal" could be infered to mean classic liberal, which Brookings is not. We should wikilink it to Modern liberalism in the United States or perhaps call them progressive. Morphh ^(talk) 18:42, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a quick post regarding Annoyed2's continuous attempts to removal all material that presents Brookings as a left-leaning or liberal institution. The material is well sourced, even over-sourced, and it is in violation of POV policy to remove this viewpoint. Even the NYT calls them left. Anyone is welcome to find other sources to include that describe the organization as centrist, since FAIR (a progressive org by their own statement) is the only one we having saying so. Morphh ^(talk) 17:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me also say that the Time Magazine reference is not "outdated". The article should show the history of the Institution as well as the present. Morphh ^(talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to reply to the last message. Brookings is 90 years old, and arguably America's first think tank. As such, it has a history of independence, hiring both Democrats and Republicans. While Heritage self-describes as "conservative" and the Center for American Progress self-describes as "progressive," Brookings proudly has no point of view. To call them liberal or left=leaning when a) they have so many conservatives and Republican scholars and b) their most frequently quoted scholar, Mike O'Hanlon, is constantly blasted in the blogosphere for supporting the Bush Administrations war in Iraq, is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoyed2 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is neither wrong or right here on Wikipedia. It is a point of view, and must be presented per WP:NPOV policy. The material is referenced and significant. If you have other sources that state your point of view, you are welcome to include them and make an argument that they are centrist. Even if there is much evidence that they are centrist, it is improper to remove the view that they are considered liberal. They are very well known as a left-leaning organization. Having republicans doesn't mean anything - I know lots of big government republicans.. Not saying they are right or wrong.. that's just the policy Brookings tends to support. Morphh ^(talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the intro that I hope is helpful. I've mentioned that they're often cited as "liberal" in the media (clearly true) and also that they've received some flack from liberals for being too hawkish (also true). Annoyed2, Morphh is right: if reputable sources routinely label Brookings as liberal, then you don't get to delete it just because you disagree with it. You're welcome to add additional information illustrating the various non-liberal positions they've taken, but you don't get to remove information from reliable sources just because you personally disagree with it. Binarybits (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Annoyed2, I added a new section titled "Criticism" that illustrates what I'm talking about. If you think that Brookings is centrist, rather than liberal, the way to demonstrate that is to find some examples and add them to the article. Don't just go deleting other peoples' well-sourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point but putting it in the lead makes this a primary issue, which considering the history of Brookings, I don't think it is. In regard to the criticism section, who is being criticized here - is it Brookings Institution or the economist that works for them? Brookings states that support like this is outside the borders of Brookings and does not speak for the organization. Is this charge against the policy written by the Institution or a particular economist? Morphh ^(talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On putting it in the lead, the lead for every other think tank entry includes some mention of its ideological leanings. That seems like an important piece of information for readers to have at a glance. On the criticism issue, lots of think tanks make the point that their scholars' research doesn't necessarily represent the official view of the organization. Nevertheless, think tanks are often criticized for research performed by their scholars. Binarybits (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We can back and forth on this forever. The evidence and citations for liberal/center-right/center-left are clearly mixed. Given how many credible sources affix different labels, it seems non-objective to arbitrarily pick one of those sources or a subset of those sources. Isn't the safest bet just to leave it off the label? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterthan11 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is best to leave it off, and I just removed it. NPOV requires a high threshold for unambiguously characterizing topics, cf. the standards for calling something pseudoscientific at WP:FRINGE/PS. The sources in this article are not sufficient for an unambiguous characterization. It already says further down in the lede that "some" believe it's a liberal organization, and that alone is inconsistent with an unambiguous characterization. On Wikipedia, anyway. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Most independent think tank"

I placed a {{fact}} template on "most independent". I don't have access to the full Encyclopedia Britannica article, so if this assertion is included there, please include a quote in the footnote. Thanks. --Evil1987 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious: Is Brookings a WP "Reputable/Reliable Source" and how many wikipedia articles cite Brookings?

I think that the Brookings institute 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 Brookings or a Brookings 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 Brookings just as an example. It could just as easily be any other "Washington Think Tank", say CATO, or the American Enterprise Institute, 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) 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are a reliable source for Wikipedia standards. CATO and AEI would be as well. Morphh ^(talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They are a source for opinions of the individual members, but not a source for facts. The same as any other corporate funded think tank 97.91.186.79 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

They produce studies and reports, not just opinion. Criticism of such studies should be no different than any public or private university or organization that conducts studies and is cited on Wikipedia. If funding is your issue, then all data cited on Wikipedia not provided by the U.S. government should be of concern to you. Awooda (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Political stance

I think the lists are relevant references. How they are described by third party Internet lists like Google (which is not a generic search query in this case) is just as notable as what the NYT calls them (and certainly more notable than what FAIR calls them). I'd even say more important since Google has a much larger base of viewers. They specifically categorize them under the organizational grouping of Left Liberalism organizations. The Time Magazine reference is important as this article should look at the organization historically. Let the reader decide if they think the organization has "changed". Also, we have lots of references that show them as being described as liberal or left, yet very few that show them as centrist. Yet we state that they are most often described by the media as liberal or centrist. Liberal is supported by the references, centrist is not. Also note that "independent" does not describe a political affiliation like centrist or the Independent Party. "Independent" means they are a private institution that is prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office - it goes to their status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. So saying they describe themselves as "independent" is not contrary to them being left, right, or center. It is incorrect to phrase this as "they describe themselves as independent, but" - there is no but.. they are independent; however, this has little to do with their political leaning. To that point, if you find a references that labels them as "independent", this is not a label of "centrist". Morphh ^(talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the directory references out because they seemed to be a sticking point for Abq815 and I thought we had enough documentation without them. But I certainly don't have a problem with putting them back in if you think they're important. And I agree that more documentation of the centrist label would be helpful. Binarybits (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to oversource it like we did (which came out of stress regarding the issue more than anything). I think we went crazy to make the point because it kept being changed by Annoyed2. I'd like to keep the google source and drop the others if that's acceptable to Abq815. Morphh ^(talk) 15:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the statement "Other U.S. liberals have criticized the work of Brookings' foreign policy scholars for being too supportive of the Bush administration's positions." This seems to be giving undue weight. Just because a couple of articles (one of which appears to be a blog) criticizes "O'Hanlon" (which is one scholar, not scholars as stated which seems to imply all of their foreign policy team) does not merit the inclusion as a policy stance of the Brookings Institution. The references do not support the statement. Morphh ^(talk) 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Morph thanks for starting this discussion and inviting me. I’m definitely new to wikipedia and appreciate any help I can get.

Before I get to the specific points of this discussion I wanted to first mention a salient point that is being missed when talking about Brookings political stance. Brookings has no political stance, but the experts that work there do. Brooking employs Republican, Democrat, Independent and unaffiliated scholars that represent a wide range of political views. “Brookings and its researchers are not so concerned, in their work, in affecting the ideological direction of the nation” and rather tend “to be staffed by researchers with strong academic credentials.” The media and academics label Brookings as centrist, liberal-centrist, left of center, left leaning and liberal so I think its important to represent that.

Morph to your first point about the relevance of the Google listing I have to say I disagree. Who wrote the bi-line for Google? Who validated it? Just because a lot of people see it and read it doesn’t make it true or more valid. A citation should be based on well-founded research and/or notable opinion by a known source (writer, journalist, academic, etc…). The New York Times and Washington Post references are more valid then the Google entry because they are written by known respected journalists. Also I’m not sure I understand your claim that the FAIR report, an extensive and well-founded study, is less valid then a Google listing.

To your second point, I agree the Time Magazine reference is important as it lends itself to the history of Brookings political stance. However, I feel that it should be placed properly as its value decreases over time. Maybe the political stance section should be reworded to provide a history of political stance as well as a more current analysis. There are some great items in the History section that could be used here. Brookings apposed the New Deal for example.

To your final point, the reference is to the remarks of two Brookings experts upon their return from a trip to Iraq in February 2003. Mike O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack (as well as Peter Rodman and Bruce Riedel) are staunch support of the Bush Administrations handling of the war in Iraq. I believe this example was used as it got a good deal of media attention on the major networks. I guess this statement should probably be reworded and have some additional citations added, which I’m happy to do. Abq815 (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. We still need to address the statement of Brookings labeling themselves as independent. This is not a political stance in the sense that it is being used in the article, which seems to imply centrist or views in line with "Independents". You hit on part of it above regarding Brookings as an organization. They are not affiliated with a party and can not represent or support such (they are independent). However, this does not exclude organization group think to a political philosophy or the positions of their scholars, which has been described more often then not as left, liberal, liberal-centrist, or centrist. The same thing applies to most think tanks. I think we're making progress... I just wanted to bring up the independent point again since it was not commented on in the replies. Morphh ^(talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to address some of the material that looks like it was copied right off the Brookings website. It's starting to look promotional. The entire second paragraph in the lead and the political influence section. From our article - "We also offer a platform to world leaders,"... who is "we".. obviously copied directly from the Brookings website.[1] Copyright and bias people.. - it is good to document their achievements, lets just avoid copying their sales material verbatim. Morphh ^(talk) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Morphh very true, independent doesn't imply a political stance. It merely states that their goals of quality research aren't based on a political ideology. For me the clear distinction in this article is characterization of the institution versus the scholar. The media will reference a political stance for the organization based on the expert or topic the piece is dealing with. For every conservative idea there is a liberal idea on the same issue. Take this example of two Brookings scholars testifying on the same senate committee one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. That being said, I'm sure we could find a reputable source for every possible political opinion regarding the institutions position. Therefore we should have a good introduction to this section laying out all of these salient points. Abq815 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We could probably integrate the criticism section into Political stance and then delete it. For the most part, it is already duplication. Morphh ^(talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Plagiarism in this article

Comparing this article to the Brookings web site, some of the the text seems to be rampantly plagiarized. (And no, adding a citation does not excuse lifting direct quotations of extended phrases without putting them in quotation marks.)

I fixed some of the text in the intro, but there still seems to be a lot of copying elsewhere in the article. For example, if you look in the "History" section it seems that practically every phrase that I look at was directly lifted from the Brookings site. (Unfortunately, some of the cited pages in the history section are offline on the Brookings site, so you need to use the Internet Archive to view them.) For example, compare the text in the "History" section to these pages:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20070203074011/http://www.brookings.edu/lib/depression.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/20070408060544/http://www.brookings.edu/lib/war.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/20070203025453/http://www.brookings.edu/lib/academic.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/20070203052542/http://www.brookings.edu/lib/doubts.htm
• http://web.archive.org/web/20070203173458/http://www.brookings.edu/lib/agendas.htm

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The History section on Wikipedia and the Brookings website appear to mostly come from two books commissioned by Brookings at major anniversaries (one of which is by historian James Allen Smith). I'll track down the citations so the history section can be updated with proper citation.

The problem is not the citation. The problem is that you can't simply copy and paste phrases from another source---if you don't use quotation marks, that is plagiarism (not to mention possible copyright infringement), even if you cite the original source. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and brought up the same point in the discussion above. Some of it was corrected but there was much still to do, as you have pointed out. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 14:05, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

Someone added Sourcewatch as a source for the proposition that Brookings is a conservative organization. I don't think this really flies. Sourcewatch's website is a Wiki, so what appears on it at any given time obviously isn't rigorously fact-checked. The claims are not sourced. And even aside from the Wiki issue, Sourcewatch is clearly an organization with a political agenda, making it less credible than the NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc. We already cite FAIR as an example of what left-of-center groups think about Brookings. I don't see what adding a dubious SW link adds to the discussion. Binarybits (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this fails as a reliable source and should not be used. Morphh ^(talk) 14:02, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction Edit

I condensed the opening paragraphs to make them a better "introduction" to Brookings and the content that follows.

- Adjusted the phrase about the range of media descriptions of Brookings (formerly "from liberal to conservative"). One of the first things a reader wants to know about any think tank is the general political orientation of its scholars and their output, if one clearly exists (and I can't think of a case where it doesn't). In this case, it confuses the issue to suggest that mainstream media outlets have such widely varying opinions about Brookings, since the term "conservative" appears to have been applied to Brookings only by the Sourcewatch wiki (see above for issues with this as a reference) and FAIR, which makes no pretense of being a channel of objective reporting and suggested the "conservative" label only backhandedly more than a decade ago in a piece that complained Brookings was hardly liberal enough for FAIR's liking (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436). We can debate the biases of various news sources as the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LAT, CNN, etc., but in the case of self-defined "non-partisan" think tanks such as Brookings, it's useful to derive some general consensus from the shorthand labeling those mainstream (widely read/viewed) sources use over time. In the past few decades, that consensus has spanned "liberal to centrist," but has not crossed to "conservative."

- Removed the content regarding criticisms from "some U.S. pundits" of "the work of Brookings' foreign policy scholars for being too supportive of Bush administration positions." Featuring that issue in the introduction gives undue prominence to a narrow debate being waged by a pair of liberal commentators on an issue (a Brookings scholar's attitudes regarding Bush Iraq policies) that is quickly receding into the political archives. That debate is already covered more appropriately in the article's "Political stance" section. Cometolearn (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Stance

User stag05 added the statement that the NYT found that "that the variety of views at the organization made labeling impossible." I can't find this in any of the sources cited. Am I missing it? Binarybits (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists in article

Thread retitled from "Removing listcruft".

Most articles about organizations do not have long lists of projects and fellows (Cato is an exception which I am about to change). This is simple Listcruft and I am deleting it. If anyone is interested, it is always possible to create a "List" article, but such lists don't belong here. Academic38 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Political leaning

Someone seems to have gone through the article and re-written key passages to obfuscate the fact that most media sources consider Brookings a center-left institution. Most egregious is the claim that the NYT calls Brookings conservative, when we cite several articles, all of which call it liberal. Someone also inserted the irrelevant commentary that the Post "usually does not characterize the institution and has quoted both Republican and Democratic scholars." This is blatant POV. Conservative/liberal is not the same as Republican/Democrat, and the fact that the Post doesn't always label Brookings doesn't invalidate the labels it has given, which are invariably left or center.

Finally, I restored the initial paragraph characterizing Brookings in the lead. All of Brookings' sister institutions (Heritage, AEI, Cato, CAP) have ideological labels, and Brookings should too, as we've discussed previously. Binarybits (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Left wing and corporate funded think tank don't really go together. I suppose you could say they are more "moderate" when it comes to social issues like gay rights which sets them apart from places like Heratige foundation. But they are firmly pro-war and firmly pro big business. as you would suspect when you look at who funds the think tank. 97.91.186.79 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Token"?

How is "a token number of conservatives" not an opinion? It is stated here as a fact. TheRealJoeWiki (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Litan

I've made a start on the Robert Litan/Senator Warren controversy. It ought to have a place here, and perhaps an article of its own as well. --Christofurio (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Thread retitled from "Written as advertisement. Neutrality compromised".

This article does not follow wikipedia lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.197.9 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

In light of the NYT article, should this article have such a section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Institute vs. Institution

When did Brookings change its name from Institute to Institution, and why? --Webmgr (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Litan scandal

The paragraph on the Robert Litan scandal needs a serious rewrite due to lack of citation as well as the extensive use of weasel words, all of which obscures the nature of the original issues. If you want a clear demonstration of what I mean, compare the dubious paragraph with this summary of how Litan came to part ways with Brookings (from Paul Krugman's review of Elizabeth Warren's book):

"A case in point, recounted in “This Fight Is Our Fight”: Back in 2015 there was a congressional hearing on the Labor Department’s proposed “fiduciary rule,” requiring that investment advisers act in the interests of their clients. (No, that wasn’t already the case — and kickbacks for giving bad advice were a regular part of the scene.) When a prominent financial economist associated with the Brookings Institution, Robert Litan, testified against the rule, Warren did what most politicians wouldn’t: She pointed out that his research supposedly making the case against was effectively a piece of paid advocacy on behalf of a big mutual fund manager. (Litan ended up severing his ties with Brookings, which said he had broken the rules.)"

Ask yourself, which of these two accounts clearly outlines the issues? Which one uses unsourced claims to obscure and excuse Litan's behavior, or smears those who questioned his impartiality, or even make clear that Brookings parted ways with their fellow? I humbly suggest that the current paragraph on this scandal fails miserably to clarify any of these issues, i.e. Congress proposes to outlaw one example of widespread corruption and, when a Brookings fellow suggests Congress should instead sit on its hands, Brookings lets him go after it is exposed that the fellow's testimony is linked to the money of vested interests who are comfortable with the corruption.

Can someone please find the relevant, unbiased citations and write a new paragraph which clearly, accurately, and impartially reflects the facts about why Robert Litan departed Brookings.110.22.7.108 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The questionable paragraph has been removed per WP:BLP, pending reliable sources being found. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Public policy tools

On its website, the Brookings Institution provides an interactive web tool, The Fiscal Barometer. The tool shows spending trends for the federal government and local and state governments. The tool displays data among ten "indicators", such as the "Fiscal impact measure" which analyzes the impact of government spending on economic growth.

I removed this paragraph and heading because it seems WP:UNDUE and verging on WP:PROMOTION in the absence of an independent source commenting on this item. Wikipedia articles should not be extensions of an organization's website or other marketing efforts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Cohen passed away in 2019, and this needs to be updated.

Senior Fellow Stephen P. Cohen and Vanda Felbab-Brown[106] are also affiliated with 21CDI.[107] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Former Brooking analyst Igor Danchenko was indicted for lying to the FBI

It is an undisputed FACT that Igor Danchenko was indicted for lying to the FBI over his involvement with Steele Dossier.   @SPECIFICO's claim that mention of Danchenko's indictment is a "BLP smear" is false and a violation of good faith. Deicas (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the think tank. We don't include every detail of affiliates' personal lives -- and we are always careful not to cast aspersions on a BLP by singling out a single event, let alone a controversial and unresolved accusation. It is a BLP violation and should not appear. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas, no one disputes the fact, but questioning the aggressive and unusual way his new entry is framed is worth discussing.

Whenever BLP is cited as a reason to question content, do not restore it until a consensus version is reached. The BOLD addition has been REVERTED so the next step is to continue a DISCUSSION here, per WP:BRD.

Also, drop the personal attacks. WP:FOC. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: It is an undisputed FACT that Igor Danchenko was indicted for lying to the FBI.

You again make the evidence-free claim that "It [mentioning Danchenko's indictment] is a BLP violation and should not appear. I again challenge you to provide the evidence and reasoning for your claim of "a BLP violation". Please cite & quote that portion of BLP policy that you are asserting permits removal of mention of Danchenko's indictment. I remind you that you have a good-faith obligation to to respond. I remind you that an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" is engaged in "Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

"This article is about the think tank" — that is a half truth at best. The article in question includes a list on notable Brooking staff/former staff. Clearly Danchenko's high-profile indictment qualifies as notable. Deicas (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is notable for Danchenko's article but not for this one. Here it's a WP:COATRACK violation as it isn't about Brookings and is irrelevant in this context. That's what makes it a BLP vio. -- Valjean (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: ...

1) Please explain your claim that mentioning Danchenko's indictment in the Brookings article is a "WP:COATRACK violation". Danchenko's indictment has drawn significant news attention to his former Brookings affiliation. See https://www.google.com/search?q=Danchenko+brookings&sxsrf=AOaemvKQu71KmlsKpknrqKHzR7s5QDPuEg:1636944727884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3sZaorpn0AhUjkmoFHad2AEEQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=730&bih=557&dpr=1.1

2) Please explain how mentioning Danchenko's indictment in the Brookings article IS a BLP violation but mentioning Danchenko's indictment in Danchenko's Wikipedia IS NOT a BLP violation. Please quote and cite the applicable portion of WP:BLP whence you claim "That's what makes it a BLP vio". Deicas (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Per your edit roll-back, [2], are you still claiming that "BLP is a concern here"? If so, would you please provide your reasoning for asserting that that the disputed text, "indicted Steele dossier source" constitutes a violation of BLP policy?

Per your claim, above, that mentioning Danchenko's indictment in the Brookings article is a "WP:COATRACK violation" — are you still making that claim? Note that WP:COATRACK refers to "Coatrack articles". The issue under dispute is not an entire article. It is only 4 words[1].

Ref.

[1] "indicted Steele dossier source" Deicas (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas, both Acroterion and Johnuniq, two highly-respected admins (who are very level-headed and sensible people), have warned you about how your constant relitigating of this issue ad nauseum is disruptive. Why are you still doing it after being warned many times and even blocked? I will not answer you here, but am creating a section on my talk page where you can repeat your question, even though I have explained this exact issue for you before. I encourage the two admins to join us there. -- Valjean (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: No. You have neither provided evidence for you claimed "BLP is a concern here" nor have you provided evidence for your WP:COATRACK violation". Or, if indeed you have provided such evidence, and I've missed it, would you please quote and diff this alleged evidence that I've missed?

As to "@Acroterion and @Johnuniq , two highly-respected admins (who are very level-headed and sensible people)" have declined to provide my specific comments for which they have imposed and sustained blocks, it is difficult for me to address your reference to their actions. But, to my knowledge, they have not weighed-in on your claims of "BLP is a concern here" nor your WP:COATRACK violation".

Please don't "creat[e] a section on [your] talk page where you can repeat your question". These issues pertain to the Brookings Institution and should be occurring here. Scattering the discussion to more pages is disruptive. Deicas (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have presented my reasoning based on my understanding of PAG.

They have both advised you about your conduct, and that is the pressing issue here.

There are two types of issues here: (1) that which is relevant to Brookings' content issues here; (2) that which is relevant to your conduct. The second type does not belong here. I was once blocked for commenting about an editor's behavior on an article talk page, even though nearly everyone, including several admins, said I was right and the one I commented on was wrong. That one still hurts as it rewarded bad behavior and allowed them to continue to wikihound me. -- Valjean (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please note my request, above, that you provide evidence to support your claims — "You [@SPECIFICO] again make the evidence-free claim ...".

I again remind you that, per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing that an editor who "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" is engaged in disruptive editing. Deicas (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusing editors of disruptive editing is often seen as a personal attack, and you are repeating exactly the same behavior and exact same words that just got you blocked. Be courteous and patient. Pinging User:Acroterion. -- Valjean (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Per you edit roll-back [3], are you still claiming "BLP smear"?. If so you would you please provide your reasoning for asserting that that the disputed text, "indicted Steele dossier source" constitutes a violation of BLP policy?

Deicas (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean Please quote the "personal attacks" which you mention, just above, or strike out your accusation of "drop the personal attacks". Deicas (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"is false and a violation of good faith" was totally unnecessary and a failure on your part to AGF. Slow down, discuss patiently and be kinder. Don't treat other editors like enemies. -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: 's@SPECIFICO claim of "BLP smear" is clearly false. The fact of Danchenko's indictment is an undisputed fact. Therefore @SPECIFICO's CLEARLY false claim of "BLP smear" is a violation of good faith. Please explain how a clearly false claim is *not* a violation of good faith? I again ask that you strike-out your "drop the personal attacks". Deicas (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas, I see we'll be going in circles, so I'll just bow out now. Your repeated use of the word "clearly" may make sense to you, but we, as in plural, are not convinced, so it's apparently not that "clear". It may give you a warm fuzzy feeling when you tell yourself that it's "clear", but if it's not "clear" to anyone else, what good does that do? We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Let me leave this to ponder. Maybe instead of calling it a BLP violation HERE at this article, let's just admit it's an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Given the volume of text that follows your "I'll just bow out now" just above, it would seem that you are NOT 'bowing out' on this topic. If you are indeed 'bowing out' on this dispute then would affirmatively indicate same? I wouldn't want to fail to address any of the concerns that you have expressed (e.g. "an editorial violation of NPOV", "an example of gratuitous poisoning the well,") prior to restoring the edit in dispute.

@@Valjean: Again: please strike out your accusation of "drop the personal attacks" above. Pointing out false claims (e.g. "BLP smear") is not a 'personal attack'. Pointing out, with evidence included, an editor's violation of WP:DE[1] and associated failure to assume good faith is not a 'personal attack'.

Ref.

[1] "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" is engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Deicas (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Accusing editors of disruptive editing is often seen as a personal attack, and you are repeating exactly the same behavior and exact same words that just got you blocked. Be courteous and patient. BTW, you have no right to force other editors to reply to you.

I would caution you not to restore the edit in dispute before a consensus has been reached. Pinging User:Acroterion. -- Valjean (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: My descriptions of @SPECIFICO's disruptive editing, above, are with supported with much evidence. Accusing editors of disruptive editing with extensive evidence is NOT "a personal attack".

Your assertion, @Valjean, that "[I] have no right to force other editors to reply to [me]" is false and belied by the WP:DE text that I referenced above. I am happy to file an AN/I if that's what it takes to enforce WP:DE obligations.

You have made a number of false claims, above. Please strike them out.

Ref.

[1] [1] "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" is engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Deicas (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:Focus on content, not on editors:

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

Valjean (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coming from the BLP/N notice:

• BLP applies everywhere, not just on biographical articles
• BLP demands we write about living persons in a neutral, dispassionate tone. While it may be true that Danchenko may be indicted, there is no need to call that out when introducing the person in this article, as that's not a neutral nor dispassionate tone.
• This is particularly true when listed among the other notable scholars, it makes the purposeful coatracking stand out even more.

If there was some impact on Brookings due to Danchenko's indictment, a separate section to describe that would be appropriate, but not to label him that way alongside the other scholars. --Masem (t) 22:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say there's an amount of coverage linking them that discussing the impact that wouldn't call for it's own section, but would fit in the listing of scholars. Before why of that discussion can take place though, there needs to be some sourcing to analyze. I was also notified about this from BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to include anything linking the indictment to Brookings in that scholars section, that's just UNDUE. But a section regarding litigation or the like would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 22:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP Notice Board filing on "... Igor Danchenko]] as "indicted Steele dossier source ...""

{{BLP noticeboard}} Deicas (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Is the {{BLP noticeboard}} template, just above, being transcended correctly? It doesn't look that way to me. What am I getting wrong here? Deicas (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the nowiki tags, so it should work now. I hope you don't mind me editing those tags out of your post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for fixing it. I seem to have chronic problem in with pasting templates in a fashion that includes nowiki tags. Deicas (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Might be a visual editor bug. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate.

Thé Wikimedia map associated with this article is blatantly wrong. Lake Huron is not depicted in blue, nor is Lake Erie nor Lake Ontario. It makes Michigan look like a sock, rather than a mitten. Very poor map. As a Michigander, it was quite shocking to me. Wish I knew how to attach a screenshot of the map. 2600:1700:37A0:6970:647B:A921:40C4:1631 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Map? There’s no map in this article. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sourcing

About half of the references on this page are to Brookings - this primary sourcing is A LOT. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Darrell M. West: author :?!...

• Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust (2014)
• Divided Politics, Divided Nation: Hyperconflict in the Trump Era, 2019
• Power Politics : Trump and the Assault on American Democracy 2022
• Nanotechnology promises powerful new applications for the Internet of Things

Darrell M. West & Jack Karsten

• Turning Point: Policymaking in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 2020
• Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance, 2011
• Biotechnology Policy across National Boundaries: The Science-Industrial Complex, 2007
• Going Mobile: How Wireless Technology is Reshaping Our Lives, 2014
• The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political Innovation, 2011
• Digital Medicine: Health Care in the Internet Era 2009
• Megachange: Political and Social Disruption in the 21st Century, 2016
• Brain gain: rethinking U.S. immigration policy, 2010
• Evaluating Campaign Quality: Can the Electoral Process be Improved, 2007
• The Rise and Fall of the Media Establishment 2001
• Digital Schools: How Technology Can Transform Education, 2012
• The Future of Work: Robots, AI, and Automation, 2018
• Dirty Tricks in the Digital Age, 2019
• Making campaigns count: leadership and coalition-building in 1980, 1984
• Congress and economic policymaking, 1987
• Celebrity politics, 2003
• Checkbook democracy: how money corrupts political campaigns, 2000
• The future of work: robots, AI, and automation, 2018
• The sound of money: how political interests get what they want, 1998
• Air wars: television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-1992, 1993
• Patrick Kennedy: the rise to power, 2001
• Running on empty?: political discourse in congressional elections, 2004

3MRB1 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)