Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research

Is there any relation to the European CEPR?

People seeing references to the 'CEPR' will undoubtedly often be confused between the two different organizations in London and Washington. Since the London-based organization was founded more than 15 years before the Washington-based organization, and was already widely known at that time (having published over 2000 discussion papers, among other things), many people are likely to assume there is some relation between the organizations. I'm unaware of any relation, but it would be helpful if someone could clarify whether there is one. If there is no relation, it would be helpful if someone knowledgeable could explain how it happened that a second organization was founded with the same acronym and almost exactly the same name. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this has been discussed in the first paragraph of the page, can this discussion be removed for sake of removing clutter? Is there a wikipedia term/policy regarding this?Kriswarner (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Left?

Why are the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive' used to describe this organization? This is a leftist think tank; why doesn't the article clearly state this?

Tyrerj (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

These are all basically synonyms. I don't see the point of this. Can this discussion also be removed? Kriswarner (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kriswarner, please see WP:TALK and WP:BLP; we don't remove talk page posts unless they violate BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Chavez

Reference from David Horowitz Freedom Center that links Center for Economic and Policy Research with Chavez keeps getting removed. WP:NPOV requires that all views should be presented, and just those favorable ones. -- Vision Thing -- 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chavez

I removed the reference from the David Horowitz Freedom Center that links the CEPR with Chavez because the CEPR has also been critical of Chavez. The assertion that it is a supporter and apologist for the Chavez administration is unfounded. Moreover, this insertion violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy and constitutes POV. I'm sure Mr. Horowitz has many points of view on many progressive think tanks. But they have no place in a purely descriptive article on the CEPR. Flavio americo (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia policy on verifiability which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is irrelevant for us whether the claim that CEPR is apologist for the Chavez administration is unfounded or not. What is important is that someone notable has stated that. -- Vision Thing -- 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see, as Crmjones pointed out, if this will survive mediation. (I will not attempt to correct the inclusion anymore--since it seems you are part of the inner circle there). Be that as it may, all I am saying is that Mr. Horowitz has very strong opinions about avowedly progressive think tanks; in fact, he actively militates against them. I don't think that is relevant to a purely descriptive entry. It violates Wikipedia's neutrality and prohibition against POV. Flavio americo (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of it violates neutrality because Wikipedia requires that all relevant view points should be included in the articles. -- Vision Thing -- 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Vision Thing: I wasn't the one who removed it last, but may I suggest something: if you are hell bent on including that ridiculously irrelevant citation from a known hydrophobic source, why don't you put it under a heading like "Criticism" and document criticism from both sides of the aisle, and not just the right-wing, distempered site? By the way, do you work for Horowitz's Freedom Center, for if so, this would constitute a conflict of interest. Flavio americo (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't work for Horowitz's Freedom Center. I think that Criticisms sections should be avoided where possible. If you have some counter-arguments about CEPR stance towards Chavez I encourage you to include them. Of course, if you will do it in accordance with Wikipedia rules. -- Vision Thing -- 10:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Vision Thing: I have nothing to do with Irkawa (i.e., I am not a sock puppet: I have only one account granted to me by "Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me" because of difficulties in creating an account from my I.P. address [4.159.59.193], which is apparently flagged by Wikipedia. So I had to ask permission to create an account from this moderator who then emailed me a password. So I am not at liberty to create accounts for myself in the English Wikipedia). Flavio americo (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Chavez, continued

It seems to me that recent edits linking CEPR to Chavez have been more neutral than the obvious POV issues discussed above. Mentioning that CEPR representatives have sometimes defended the Chavez regime is perfectly appropriate, unless the edit is done in a way that implies it is CEPR's main activity (which is clearly not the case, as far as I can tell). To avoid implying that the Chavez regime is the main focus or a principal focus of CEPR, it would be more appropriate to take this material out of the introduction. It could be in a section called "Advocacy" that could document a variety of CEPR positions. Or if the point is that some people have criticized CEPR for defending Chavez, it could be in a section called "Criticism". --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

CEPR is not an advocacy organization. With regards to Hugo Chávez and Venezuela, or any other president, CEPR does not "defend" presidents or governments. CEPR has published economic analyses of various Latin Amerian countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico and others. These analyses cannot be considered a "defense" of any president or government; CEPR does not take political positions in this way.

The "advocacy" section was added by a right-wing blogger who has a political grudge against CEPR and has stalked the organization and its staff for years. It is not an attempt to provide objective information about the organization, but rather an attempt to misrepresent the organization in order to discredit it. Scalabrineformvp (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the "advocacy" section was NOT added by a right-wing blogger. I added it, and I am not a blogger, and I have never 'stalked CEPR', and my political views are irrelevant because I try to follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy strictly. For weeks or months there was an edit war on this page, in which people who appeared very critical of CEPR repeatedly inserted statements claiming that CEPR supported Chavez, right in the introduction of the article, either without citations or with citations from nonreliable sources like blogs. These comments were repeatedly reverted by other editors, including me (check the edit history here and you will see). Finally, someone inserted text stating that CEPR staff had sometimes defended Hugo Chavez' policies, which as far as I could tell was an objective and neutrally-worded statement of fact, after I read the Weisbrot testimony. (I was unable to read the other citations because they didnt get past my firewall.) The statement seemed out of context, since defending the Venezuelan government is clearly not the main activity of CEPR. So, as I mentioned above in my comment from 9 Feb., I created an "advocacy" section where we could all add statements about the types of public policy positions that have been supported by CEPR. It seemed more appropriate to call it "advocacy" instead of "criticism", because the claim that CEPR staff have sometimes defended Hugo Chavez' government is not a criticism, since the claim makes no value judgment. If someone had instead documented criticism of CEPR, I would have titled the section otherwise.

Anyway, what I was trying to suggest is that editors could add a variety of evidence about the types of policy positions CEPR has taken. Since I don't claim to be an expert on CEPR's positions, I didn't add any evidence about that myself, other than the point that had already been made about Venezuela. By the way, it's hard for me to understand the claim that CEPR is not an 'advocacy' organization. If I recall correctly, it explicitly describes itself as a 'progressive' organization, and seeks to present analysis of policy alternatives that may be underrepresented in U.S. debates. If that's not advocacy, what is? I thought that by adding the "advocacy" section, readers might find some broader perspective about what CEPR advocates, thus removing any suggestion that Venezuela is central to (or even representative of) its point of view. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that the sources provided do not support that the CEPR as institution has advocated for HC. In fact, the sources don't support that several "staff members" of CEPR have advocated for him; I only read references to Weisbrot. Actually, one of the references does not mention CEPR at all; in the other two, it is mentioned to help identify Weisbrot but I don't read that he is speaking on behalf of CEPR. Therefore, I think this section should be deleted from the article. JRSP (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the material in this section should be removed. I thought initially that it could be moved to the Mark Weisbrot article but now I see several problems with the references provided. The US Senate hearing is primary material so we would need a secondary source to assess its notability and to support any interpratation of this testimony as "advocacy". The other two sources just reflect the connection of Weisbrot to Bank of the South, something that is already covered in his article. On the other side, I think that the description of CERN as "a 'progressive' organization, and seeks to present analysis of policy alternatives that may be underrepresented in U.S. debates" could be suitable for this section if properly sourced. JRSP (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the recent edits made to the advocacy section portray a much more accurate picture of both CEPR's work and also of Mark Weisbrot's writing. I can also enter some references if that would make everyone more agreeable. Scalabrineformvp (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please... the advocacy section now urgently needs references. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The article is relying too much on self-published material. According to WP:SELFPUB, it is fine to use CEPR material to describe their own activities but the article would be much better if mostly based on material from independent reliable secondary sources. JRSP (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation on CEPR articles

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted on MarkWeisbrot's page - this note on sockpuppets should probably be removed as there were no sockpuppets being used, as demonstrated by the fact that my block for that reason was removed. Still waiting on blocks to be removed on uers MarkWeisbrot and Scalabrineformvp.Kriswarner (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kriswarner, I have altered the section heading to reflect your concern, however, you don't seem to understand the nature of sock and meatpuppetry investigations on Wiki, and the investigation did document meatpuppetry, which for the purposes here, considers the editors as "one entity". A read of WP:MEAT may help clear up your confusion, specifically: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. ... For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." I hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that these are subjects of the articles concerned, I think we should be a little more welcoming. I don't see a problem at all with their contributing to the talk pages as long as they correctly identify themselves, which they have done.

For your reference, Kriswarner, there is a block notice on User_talk:Markweisbrot with instructions on how to appeal the block. Mark only ever contributed to talk pages, and I think an appeal might well be successful (given that subjects of Wikipedia biographies are often advised that it might be best if they restricted themselves to talk page comments, rather than editing their own biography). There is a related thread on the administrators' incident noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPI_followup. You can argue your organisation's case there.

What remaining concerns do you have with the articles on Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker and this present article? I have worked on the Mark Weisbrot article and know it well, but have not looked at the other two yet. Regards, --JN466 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Contentious material moved from article

According to a 2004 National Review article, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO)—a lobbying agency whose goal is to improve the perception of Venezuela in the US—"coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research". CEPR representatives signed a letter to the editor of the Center for Public Integrity, saying that their statements about the VIO were "highly misleading".

This constitutes an insinuation that CEPR (and is part of a campaign of similar insinuations against related living persons - cf Talk:Mark Weisbrot) has connections with the Venezuela government via the Venezuela Information Office. This is based on a poor source of debatable relevance (National Review, making merely the vague and unsourced claim that VIO "coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research") and a Center for Public Integrity report which mentions neither CEPR nor Weisbrot. But the Center for Public Integrity did feel the need to publish a response from a number of people, including Weisbrot, in response to the various allegations of people being associated with VIO.[1] Unbelievably, Sandy summarises this as the letter "saying that their [Center for Public Integrity's] statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"." The letter is not about the VIO, it is about the people smeared by supposed connections to VIO - and Sandy seeks to use this to smear Weisbrot and CEPR, neither of whom are mentioned in the original piece! This contentious, misrepresented, badly sourced and WP:SYNTHy material has no place in this article. Rd232 ^talk 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, I reviewed the passage and the sources used. They seem honestly represented, hence your removal of the text is troubling. The National Review is certainly not a "poor source"; we don't require independent, reliable sources to source their own claims in articles. Regarding the letter, it does claim the Center for Public Integrity's statements were "highly misleading". That's the topic sentence of the letter. How can you say it's unbelievable to summarize the letter that way? I'm merely providing an independent review. I see nothing problematic about the text—I wouldn't even blink at it were it to read it under casual circumstances. I urge you to replace it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for your input. If necessary we can go to RSN for discussion of National Review as a reliable source for contentious claims. But I'm surprised that you do not see any problematic difference between statements about the VIO and statements about people accused of being linked to VIO. To spell it out: the former looks like defending the VIO - that is the intentional misrepresentation being done. The latter is what actually happened - and read again what the letter actually says. It is not defending an agent of a foreign government; it is defending people accused of links to a foreign government. slight difference. It is also worth quoting from the letter re the value of the article as a source: "It is also worth noting that Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez."[2] In prior discussion I provided additional sourcing verifying Kornblith's involvement, if it matters. Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mm, just read the original letter again, and noticed it does actually quote Weisbrot - about a letter which was not to do with VIO.[3] This doesn't really help the case for inclusion; the letter incident mentioned (in which no CEPR involvement is specified, and which is anyway accepted as having no VIO connection) would be clearly WP:UNDUE, as indeed the whole thing is. It remains the case that both the National Review article and the Venezuelan-opposition sourced CPI article were attempting to create or play up connections between VIO and some US people. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not questionable sources, misrepresentation (as noted above) and insinuation. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to do some thinking before I reply. It's difficult to follow your arguments because you integrate some statements that are your opinion with statements you obtained from sources. It'll take me a while to unravel this. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, sorry, there's so much going that clarity suffers. If it helps to ask questions, please do. Also you could look at the pre-history of the issue at Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"According to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, CEPR is a supporter and apologist for Hugo Chavez.[4] - I don't think so. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Rd232. I'm trying my best to make sense of this mess, but every time I review one of your edits, it looks like you have an itchy trigger finger. Neither your edit summary nor your comment here provides any substantive reason for removing the text. To be clear, I am not commenting on the text or the source. I am commenting on your behavior, and requesting an explanation. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was self-evident - that some conservative foundation is not a suitable source for making such an enormously contentious claim. WP:UNDUE is the most obvious policy concern. And moving such an enormously contentious claim to talk is absolutely something to be done on sight. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The website is more obscure than I thought - can't find very much about it. There is this. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to assume Defender of torch added the information in good faith and that you removed it in good faith, but clear communication will be a benefit in all cases. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References

External Links

A couple of suggestions for external links: Dean Baker bio and publications: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/dean-baker/ Mark Weisbrot bio and publications: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/mark-weisbrot/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarner (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CEPR also has a YouTube Channel where videos from various events are accessible: http://www.youtube.com/cepr --Kriswarner (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really convinced about the Baker/Weisbrot bio links - they have their own entries after all, and this is about CEPR. Youtube channel - well I can't think of any precedent; but I don't see why not. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232. The bio and publications pages should be used in the BLPs rather than here. The youtube channel is fine as an external link. --JN466 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Geographic focus outside U.S.

"CEPR publishes reports and opinions on a number of issues. Its geographical focus outside the United States is primarily on Latin America, and in particular on Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela.[13]"

CEPR has also done quite a bit of work on Haiti (see this page devoted to it: http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_issue&issue=33&Itemid=22), and now alsohas a blog about the reconstruction effort after the earthquake: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-reconstruction-watch/. Kriswarner (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This sort of feedback is helpful, but would be even more helpful if you could provide independent, secondary reliable sources to use in place of CEPR (self) sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be linked to recent events in Haiti; unless it develops into a more long-term focus on Haiti I don't think it is worth adding just yet. News coverage linking CEPR and Haiti is as yet quite scarce, compared to other countries that we have not mentioned. --JN466 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal/progressive

I believe we should follow apparent majority opinion and refer to CEPR as a liberal, rather than progressive, think tank. Frequency analysis: 44 for liberal, 7 for progressive. Any objections to changing it? --JN466 16:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Extended search, including web, news, books, scholar, images, with frequencies returned in each category:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL         41 / 44 / 6 / 1 / 0 Total = 92
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 11 /   7 / 0 / 0 / 0 Total = 18

--JN466 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another search configuration:

• "Center for Economic and Policy Research" "progressive think tank": 10 matches in google news
• "Center for Economic and Policy Research" "liberal think tank": 75 matches in google news

--JN466 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's not appropriate to call CEPR a 'liberal' organization, because 'liberal' is an ambiguous word. People read Wikipedia all over the world, but the word 'liberal' has at least three completely different meanings. In the US it usually means 'left', but in Europe it usually means 'right'. That's why a lot of leftists (all over the world) call themselves 'progressive' instead of 'liberal'-- it's a less ambiguous description.

The reason for the confusion is that 'liberal' originally meant 'in favor of liberty', including freedom of speech and religion, free trade, and the freedom to use one's own property as one sees fit. Over time in the US it became associated with freedom in social issues (see Social liberalism), which is often associated with the political left. But in Europe and Latin America it became associated with free market economics (see Neoliberalism or Market liberalism), which is often associated with the political right. So today if a newspaper in the US says someone is 'liberal', that typically means they are on the left, whereas if a newspaper in Europe (or most of the rest of the world) says someone is 'liberal', that typically means they are on the right.

The google news counts above are mostly from US sources, which would explain why the word 'liberal' is used more often than 'progressive'. But that's ambiguous (which is why a recent editor changed 'liberal' to 'American liberal'). Since Wikipedia is intended to be clear for English-speaking people all over the world, it should prefer a word that has the same meaning everywhere. That word is 'progressive'.

Another reason 'progressive' makes sense is that it is a clear opposite of 'conservative'. A 'conservative' is someone who values traditional ways, and hence wants to 'conserve' the past; that's what political right means. A 'progressive' is someone who questions traditions ways and wants to make 'progress' by changing them; that's what political left means. Both 'conservative' and 'progressive' are positive, respectful words to describe these values, and are less likely to be considered insulting than simply saying 'right' and 'left'. Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Social democratic" anybody?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikify "progressive"

My linking progressive to progressivism has been reverted by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, arguing: ″this is a synomym for Social democratic/liberal, following the progressive party of Henry Wallace, with support of CPUSA, not Teddy Roosevelt's progressivism.″

Principle: Please be constructive and improve a good-faith edit you disagree with rather than simply reverting it.

Substance: This exchange demonstrates that we need a wikilink here for clarity on what the article means by "progressive". I'm not familiar with Wallace's Progressive Party but if it leans towards communism, as Kiefer implies with his CPUSA reference, it most certainly does not represent the progressivism that the CEPR is aligned with. In contrast, the progressivism article, in my point of view, describes "social democratic / liberal" very well. So for the time being, I maintain the article should link to progressivism. --EnOreg (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is based on the website of the organization, and no explanation of progressive is given. Disambiguating it without additional sources would require original research, and so is prohibited. You might look at the articles of Weisbrot or Baker to see whether any source explains "progressive"; each is WP:notable while this center need not be. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not quite sure what the argument is now. You indicate that the CEPR describe themselves as progressive, there is a discussion above concluding it's the right label, and as a third-party example, FAIR also list them such: [5]. That should be enough evidence. Then there is the definition of the term, as delivered by the WP article on progressivism. I don't see the ambiguity. What exactly do we need to clarify? --EnOreg (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. The article progressivism does not discuss Henry Wallace or the Progressive Party (or the purge of Mao-enthusiasts from the CPUSA) or the use of "progressive" by social-democrats, new-left revolutionary socialists (small c communists), etc. With its emphasis on Bull-Moose and contemporary Republicans supporting progressive taxation, It is not a credible disambiguation. Let people use dictionaries or Google.

Also, "Wikify" is wrong. Perhaps you should use "disambiguate"/"dab"?Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your tone comes across as rude and condescending which tends to get in the way of a grown-up discussion based on rational arguments.

Wallace's Progressive Party existed for only seven years and that was more than half a century ago. Nevertheless, it is actually mentioned in the article. If you think it warrants more attention than the progressivism article grants it please take it to that article. Either way, this party has hardly anything to do with today's definition of progressivism nor, for that matter, with the CEPR. Why should it prevent this article from linking there? --EnOreg (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As there has been no further counterargument in a week I would like to reinstate the link, referencing the source above for the classification. --EnOreg (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela section

I recommend taking the Venezuela section out entirely, as an undue section designed to transmit a biased POV against CEPR. I have followed the organization's work for over a decade, and their Venezuela work is a tiny fraction of their overall product, as is evident from their website. Using the rightwing Front Page magazine as a primary source is evidence of bias, and the article itself suggests that the Council on Foreign Relations has acted as an apologist for Iran - this is a scurrilous suggestion, entirely outside the left and right spectrum of respectable political discourse, from the far right fringe. There is also hearsay/gossip (contrary to Wikipedia principles) about a CEPR economist asking for funding for a Venezuelan organization, followed by an irrelevant and again undue focus on Venezuela events CEPR staff may have attended, ignoring the hundreds of other events CEPR staff may have attended. This Wiki entry should be brought in line with entries for similar organizations, including the Peterson Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_Institute_for_International_Economics), CSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies), and the Economic Policy Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Policy_Institute). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefranks72 (talk • contribs) 17:54, October 3, 2014

I added back only some of the Venezuela info but not the biased sources you mentioned. They have been associated with the Venezuelan government which is notable in their article. I hope you see my efforts of placing more info in the article as well as it was quite bare. More is on the way.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ZiaLater, your contributions to Wikipedia consist almost entirely of injecting POV into various Venezuela-related articles. If this is not your intention, please refer to basic Wikipedia guidelines regarding neutrality, correct use of reliable sources, undue weight, original research, cherrypicking, etc.. This has gone on for months with little improvement on your part. --Riothero (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Now, as of this edit (September 20, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research&diff=682050120&oldid=681980827) by ZiaLater, I'm a "self-proclaimed Chavista"! Tell me, Zialater, where is your reference for this? This is an outright lie and unfortunately consistent with your edits on this page and others related to CEPR and Venezuela. People should continue to keep an eye on all edits this user makes, and probably revert recent ones. Kriswarner (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't referring to you Kris but another user. It is interesting that you've been guard-dogging your former employer. Further COI actions will be dealt with.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Who? And regarding COI: we've dealt with this before, on Deborah James's Talk page. As Mbinebri pointed out, I'm well within my rights and my edits are not COI. Don't threaten me. Kriswarner (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Positions on very particular subjects

Recently, there have been a number of additions/revisions/deletions to this page related to positions that CEPR has taken on very particular subjects (the Affordable Care Act, the Minimum Wage, "taxes," Venezuela). As an economic think tank, this is basically its reason for existence. It seems that rather than trying to examine the CEPR website and then transfer possibly hundreds of its positions on various subjects here, a higher-level summary (based on secondary sources) would be much more useful. And if that is done, it should be neutral and weighted properly - half of its work is on the U.S., half of it international (and most of that in Latin America, including countries other than Venezuela).

Disclosure: I'm a former employee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarner (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to this, I removed the sections. I think a summary of some major stances might still be worthwhile however. Kriswarner (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to make a summary that you describe showing their positions and contributions. As a former employee, could you possibly help me create such a summary? I placed back some information about the staff since there are relating articles on WP and they involve some notable people.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no basis in policy for the deletions of sourced text form this aricle by a former employee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious SEE ALSO

@ZiaLater:. I took a look at the section in the Bolivarian Propaganda article, and the only difference is that the article contains a some information from Discoverthenetworks, an American hard-right attack site that specializes in the same conspiracy-mongering that Glenn Beck's chalkboard is known for, as well as the connection between the VIO and CEPR. (+infoshop, an anarchist site). Discoverthenetworks is not a reliable source by wikipedia standards (nor are frontpagemag, globalresearch, voltairenet etc) - it should not be used to substantiate controversial claims or alter the POV-balance of an article. Non-specialist sources such as the ones I listed are usually deleted on sight, with few objections. In fact you've done the same for this article, commendably. As for the connections between the CEPR and VIO, we can mention them here very briefly. This will allow us to remove the link to Bolivarian Propaganda which is POV-SYNTH article to the core. Many media sources and advocacy groups have connections to governments, but there is a difference between pointing out these connections and calling their work "propaganda". The latter is almost never done here on wikipedia because it violates NPOV and creates a controversial political narrative. US newspapers rely on government sources all the time and attack "enemy" governments, US advocacy groups aggressively advocate for this or that government. There are advocacy groups in Russia and Ukraine that meet with American politicians, receiving money and talking-points from the West, yet their work is never labeled "propaganda" here - and rightly so. To label those groups propagandists would mean violating NPOV, and building an unsourced narrative that lets the much bigger Russian propaganda apparatus off the hook. I hope you agree that doing so would be absurd. Likewise there are no articles on Russian propaganda, Israeli propaganda, Iranian propaganda etc. even though all these regimes aggressively push their message around the world - often at the point of a gun. As far as CEPR is concerned, insinuating that it is a propaganda arm is far more undue and absurd: they don't receive money from Venezuela and most of their work - even on Latin America - has nothing to do with advocating Chavismo. When CEPR does cover Venezuela, they usually do so as economic specialists. They may be biased, but Chavismo is a polarizing topic. The point is that there is no equivalence between between the CEPR's work and the type of brazen "propaganda" we normally see from governments. An example of the latter would be Russian propaganda on Ukraine, which is clearly a very different beast.

So what I propose is that we include a note about the relationship between the VIO and CEPR and delete the link to Bolivarian propaganda, which is a highly problematic article in the first place. Thoughts?Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

We could just place the info about the links between the VIO and CEPR in the CEPR article without the link. The reason the CEPR and VIO link was seen as propaganda was due to the fact that the VIO was a fairly large propaganda organization for the Bolivarian government in the 2000s when oil funds were fruitful. It is not calling it a "propaganda arm" in a sorts but it has been involved in the process. The reason I tried to keep the details of the link off of the CEPR article is because I didn't want a section talking about propaganda links and it felt more appropriate in the Bolivarian propaganda article.

The Bolivarian propaganda article is also relevant as the Bolivarian government attempted to spread its ideology, especially with the goal of creating a unified Latin America. Over the years we thought the best name for the article was "Bolivarian propaganda" since it is linked to the Bolivarian government, not the historic Venezuelan government that has stretched over hundreds of years. I see your interest on trying to make things neutral among Cold War/socialist articles and respect it. The reason I have an interest in Venezuela is because a lot of the issues it is facing could have been prevented, not an ideological reason. I don't think there is one right way to fix a problem. I'll make a few changes and tell me what you think!--ZiaLater (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I just removed it, I think the other section explains the bias pretty well and others can find this pretty easily if they are looking into things thoroughly.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated. A possible passage that can be included is this: "The VIO contacted the CEPR on multiple separate occasions for various reasons such as responding to negative media about Venezuela, asking for Weisbrot to speak at a congressional briefing, meeting with Venezuelan ministers and participating in panel discussions." However it does rely on primary sources, which may present a problem. Overall, I think the section is fine as it stands. On the issue of the merits of the Bolivarian propaganda, I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree. The fact that you had to think about the title (clearly you could have chosen "Propaganda under Chavez" etc.) hints that the topic is has is not well-established. The statements that "unification" implied propaganda or the "historic Venezuelan govt" implied its absence, there is not much to say - they seem mainly rhetorical. I think the Venezuelan opposition tends to romanticize the status quo ante in a way that is ludicrous (although one can understand it on the basis of its socio-economic affiliation). Anyway - I better stop because of notforum. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Center for Economic and 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140708152022/http://venezuela-us.org/2014/02/20/peoples-of-latin-america-continue-progressing-to-reach-our-destiny-independence/ to http://venezuela-us.org/2014/02/20/peoples-of-latin-america-continue-progressing-to-reach-our-destiny-independence/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006174409/http://www.cepr.net/index.php/events/events/the-legacy-of-hugo-chavez-at-home-and-abroad to http://www.cepr.net/index.php/events/events/the-legacy-of-hugo-chavez-at-home-and-abroad
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319220615/http://www.cepr.net/index.php/staff to http://www.cepr.net/index.php/staff/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cepr.net/index.php/board/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved from Mark Weisbrot

Work published by CEPR, moved here from Mark Weisbrot article. It needs to be more carefully written to clarify these are the author's opinions, and then could be added to this article.

At five year intervals beginning in 2000, Weisbrot co-authored a series of papers looking at the progress in economic growth and social indicators - including life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and education - for all countries with available data. Weisbrot says there was a sharp slowdown in economic growth for the vast majority of low-and-middle-income countries in the last two decades of the 20th century, with an accompanying diminished rate of progress on social indicators; and a rebound in the first two decades of the 21st century. Their writing attributes the two decades of failure to neoliberal policy changes adopted by most countries during the last decades of the 20th century. They attributed the 21st century rebound to some improvements in policy; China’s growth, its massive contribution to poverty reduction, and its increased trade volumes with developing countries; and the International Monetary Fund’s diminished role in middle-income countries. On October 9th, 2017, Weisbrot presented the most recent report, which emphasized the role of China, with economist Jeffrey Sachs in Washington, DC.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit

I’ve been following this page for a while and I've never liked how sparse it is, so I was glad when I saw a big edit come through! I thought I'd take a look at what was written, and I've run into a few problems with the sourcing and content. I've outlined them below. I'd love to hear other editors' thoughts on this.

I've run into three problems with the sources: Formal NPOV issues, the accuracy of the claims themselves, and undue weighting issues. Because quite a few of these involve contentious claims, have previously been adjudicated on this talk page, and increased the page word count by ~33%, I think it’s safe to call this a major edit. After looking around to see what to do with a major edit, I found this:

Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. One editor's idea of an improvement may be another editor's idea of a desecration. If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. Before making a major change, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and then link to it on the article's talk page so as to facilitate a new discussion. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss

Therefore, in the spirit of Wikipedia, I’ve reverted this edit until we can talk it out! Well, no use waiting.. Let’s jump in!

First, let’s go through the added citations to examine accuracy and balance issues:

NPOV: Note 14: Discoverthenetworks.org: This seems to be a site run in part by David Horowitz, a very conservative American writer. From his page: 'Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable."'

From the site's page: "When first launched the website was criticized for a jump page picturing entertainment celebrities such as Bruce Springsteen and Barbra Streisand adjacent to radical Muslim terrorists."

Let’s talk this one out: is this the type of stuff we want spreading on Wikipedia? Is it even within the guidelines to cite someone who’s basically been called a professional racist by the SPLC? I know we can find sources that present a wide range of views, without amplifying the clout/reach/influence of someone as reactionary as this. Full disclosure: I am American, so I might be a bit a biased on the matter. If there are people from elsewhere who have a good argument for promoting American racists, I promise I will give it a listen. To be clear, I’m being completely serious. I take my objectivity very seriously.

Aside from all that, the Horowitz issue has already been a huge issue for this page! You can refer to the ‘Chavez’ talk sections above to find a very similar discussion to the one we’re having now. As you can see a compromise was reached, and Horowitz was cited on the page, but the language of the text was made more neutral. It seems like we’d be relying a lot on one source if we added multiple citations from his organizations again.

Accuracy: Note 14: ibid: The added text to wiki: “ On the day the VIO registered to the Department of Justice, CEPR's co-director and advisor to Hugo Chávez,[19] Mark Weisbrot, signed a letter "to the progressive funding community" about donating to groups like the VIO. "

Here is the original text from the citation http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7226:

'On the same day that VIO registered with the U.S. Justice Department, Mark Weisbrot co-signed a letter addressed "to the progressive funding community," urging potential donors "to take an interest in this issue [democracy in Venezuela], and provide funding to groups [like VIO] that are working on it, before it is too late." '

The bracketed text dramatically changes the meaning of the quotes. Without the brackets, the quote reads like a generic call for funding. Since the link to the letter is dead, it is impossible to verify how accurate the sentence reads with the brackets added. DiscovertheNetworks took quite a bit of agency in deciding which groups Weisbrot was referring to by adding the VIO bracket, which makes the source not the best fit for Wikipedia.

Questionable Source: Note 15 - Thor Halvorssen, http://www.reporteconfidencial.info/noticia/3236153/diaspora-criolla-venezuela-pierde-los-mejores-anos-de-sus-hijos/ :

From his page: Halvorssen is a critic of Hugo Chávez,[46] and has written on Venezuela’s anti-Semitism and the assault on democracy and individual rights in Latin America.[47]

You’ll have to introduce me to some of Halvorssen’s work if I’ve gotten the wrong idea, but at first glance, it looks like he has some strong opinions about Venezuela. It seems a little questionable to include him here.

From Wikipedia: “Questionable sources...include websites and publications expressing views...that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions [emphases added], persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources)

It seems like the folks at HQ have spoken on this one folks. I don’t think we need to debate whether calling a person with no connection to a pygmy tribe a “pygmy” let alone a “propagandist” is contentious!

NPOV : 16 - Proveo.org: from its google blurb: "UK based NGO that provides information on the social, educational, financial and political crisis of Venezuela caused by the neo fascist revolution of Hugo Chavez."

I can't imagine there is a universal consensus that Chavez led a 'neo fascist revolution.' This seems like a site with a VERY strong point of view (“Neo Fascist”? You know it’s heated when those accusations start coming out). Again, we could either balance a strong opinion like this with an opinion just as strong from a different point of view (I cover why this won’t really work below), or we can look for more measured sources.

Accuracy: Note 20, http://www.proveo.org/viofara0205c.pdf :

“A year later following the 2004 Venezuela recall referendum, the VIO contacted the CEPR on 22 September 2004, giving it a report from the Venezuelan government to share about the referendum, with the CEPR publishing a similar report the following day that was then shared by the VIO to its followers. "

This was quite the claim! Please point me in the right direction if I’m lost, but after reading the document, the only mention I found to anything related to the Center was a row on page 10 stating that Mark Weisbrot was contacted by email to be a speaker at an event. I also checked the CEPR website for reports issued in 2004, and didn’t find anything that seemed liked it would fit the profile of the report mentioned here (http://cepr.net/publications/reports/). I would also note that making the claim that a non-partisan research organization is publishing ‘similar reports’ to those fed to it by a government is probably not the best thing for a Wikipedia page, unless that claim is backed by incredibly well-sourced evidence. Say, for instance, that someone wrote on the Brookings Institute (another highly respected think tank) page that the Institute was receiving anti-American reports from Russia and publishing similar results the next day. That would really be quite the accusation!

Relevance: 21, 22: "The VIO contacted the CEPR on multiple separate occasions for various reasons such as responding to negative media about Venezuela, asking for Weisbrot to speak at a congressional briefing, meeting with Venezuelan ministers and participating in panel discussions."

These are some fantastic primary sources, but I'm not sure the take away is relevant to the page or its readers. The VIO seems to have contacted CEPR 14 years ago, but nothing seems to have come of the interaction in the sources provided. The Center is likely contacted by many organizations around the world every day. Reporting on all those contacts would be a herculean task which would little benefit the readers of this page.

Finally a word on weight. First from our trusty overlords, the people who write the policy pages:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

They’ve said it better than I ever could =D

What we’re working with here is a sparse page (900 words for a 20 year old organization), and fully 50% of those words are related to Venezuela. This is for an NGO that has a full domestic staff and does research on what looks to be dozens of countries around the world. I’m guessing we can all agree there’s a biiiiiit of a weight issue there. Even removing this edit leaves 175/600 words on Venezuela, which is still a sizeable overweight. I think there’s plenty to do with this page. But we need to keep things balanced as we work. Let’s do it. DenizenGene (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So, your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is that the views expressed are minority viewpoints? That means you have alternate majority viewpoints you can provide with reliable sources? And your interpretation of WP:NPOV is that viewpoints that you disagree with are not reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, good questions, Sandy. Let me clarify myself. While I labeled my third critique of the edit as "undue weighting issues" the section I cited was 2.3.1 of WP:WEIGHT, "Balancing aspects". A subsection of "Due and Undue Weight", "Balancing aspects" seems to me to be discussing the content of the page rather than the views presented in that content. For instance, on this page, I would argue that contact from a Venezuelan organization is a minor aspect of CEPR's work on Venezuela, which itself is a minor aspect of CEPR's work on Latin America, which itself is a medium-sized aspect of its international work, which is a semi-major aspect of its work as a Center. In that regard, dedicating 50% of the page to minor aspects seems to me not to be the ideal way to structure the expansion of this page. I hope that helps with your first two questions. Could you clarify the third a bit? I don't know much about the topics on hand, so I don't really have opinions about them, but I'm well aware unconscious bias can sneak in anywhere! DenizenGene (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT: fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So, you argue that there are reliable sources expressing a different view about CEPR, but you haven't presented those. You argue that Venezuela is a small part of what reliable sources have to say about CEPR, but you present no evidence. We base decisions about WEIGHT and NPOV on reliable sources-- not count of characters on the page. WP:NPOV: all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That doesn't allow us to leave out the ones we don't agree with. We present all reliable points of view. You don't like sources here, but you present no alternative reliable sources. Surely Znet, Venezuelanalysis and other friendly sources have lots of nice things to say about CEPR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, let me take another stab here. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This is the basis of my first argument. Regardless of the points of view provided, the recent changes were "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Take an example: on the page for Cattle, can we both agree that it would be disproportionate to have half the article be a discussion of milk? In our example, Venezuela is the milk! It's vital that it appears on the page, but it shouldn't overwhelm the page, thereby giving readers an inappropriate sense of its overall significance to the topic. DenizenGene (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that you've filled the talk page with requotes of your interpretation of policy and guideline that experienced editors already know, but you've not yet provided a single source to back your views, which have a lot to do with your personal likes and dislikes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's pick it up tomorrow. To clarify, my views are based on the guidelines which I have provided. Could you stop suggesting I have 'likes and dislikes', please? I haven't stated anything about my preferences in regard to the subject because a) objectivity is vital b) I don't know enough about the subject matter to have likes and dislikes. I think once we come to an agreement on the Balancing Aspects clause, we can have a great conversation about the rest of my points (let's not forget about those inaccuracies in the sources!). Could you engage with me on the Balancing Aspects by providing an example of what you think the sentence I quoted in my previous reply means? (I'll spare the space and not requote it!) As far as I can tell, it exactly covers the situation here: a contribution is made that among other things creates a disproportionate significance, and therefore that edit should be reverted. Thanks so much for taking the time to work through this. Viva la Wikipedia! DenizenGene (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would stop with the "hiya" "folksy" stuff in edit summaries; it feels like a real boundary problem. Yes, you expressed your likes and disklikes:

From his page: Halvorssen is a critic of Hugo Chávez,[46] and has written on Venezuela’s anti-Semitism and the assault on democracy and individual rights in Latin America.[47]You’ll have to introduce me to some of Halvorssen’s work if I’ve gotten the wrong idea, but at first glance, it looks like he has some strong opinions about Venezuela. It seems a little questionable to include him here.

Halvorssen having views on Venezuela are not what determines reliability, any more than Weisbrot's views on Venezuela do. And that you cherrypicked from his work reveals that you probably are familiar with it and him. Do you have reliable sources discussing CEPR that provide an a view that you would like to include and that you feel is not represented? You cannot talk WEIGHT and BALANCE unless you have something to indicate what is lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I was not clear. The first sentence in the section you quoted is certainly NOT my opinion of Halvorssen. It is a direct quote from his Wikipedia page as of yesterday, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Halvorssen_(human_rights_activist). As I go on to say, I don't know anything about him ("you'll have to introduce me..."). I read his Wikipedia page until I found material related to the subject matter, and proceeded to quote it. Is the quoted statement unreliable? If so, we should contact the editor's of his page. I would also note that the Halvorssen quote provided in the edit easily fits into the category of 'contentious claim' as it involves Halvorssen calling Weisbrot a 'pygmy' and a 'propagandist.' Are we in agreement that that quote contained a contentious claim?

Before we move on to finding more reliable sources, I think we need to find agreement in what type of content the page should have. Otherwise we won't know what type of sources to look for. At the moment the page has a high volume of appraising and critical quotes, but a low volume of statements about what the Center actually does. To get a sense of what the page should look like, I googled "American Think Tanks," and looked at several Wikipedia entries for the listed organizations. I've found that none of the well-established articles use this praise/criticism model, and instead explain the organization's work. There are cases in which the editors have noted praise for the institution, but rarely is the praise quoted at length. I think this lends itself to a neutral article, and propose it as a model going forward. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation -DenizenGene (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"We" ? If you need help in understanding what constitutes reliable sources, you can start at WP:V and go next to WP:RS. The burden is on the editor wanting to add material to make sure it is reliably sourced. Regarding other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As per that page's guidelines the arguments I've presented about modeling this page on pages similar to it should not be dismissed without discussion. -DenizenGene (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

History of meat puppetry

There has been a history of WP:MEAT on this article (and Weisbrot), so I suggest all participants read the policy. WP:NOT might also be helpful. There is too much puffery based on primary sources, and too little use of secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored text which altered direct quotes from New York Times

here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I see now that the citation refers to the organization as "progressive" (https://fair.org/extra/the-incredible-shrinking-think-tank/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagenesis (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times and others clearly use "left-leaning", while FAIR describes other orgs as centrist, while calling CEPR progressive. Please do not alter direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of cited text

Please discuss removal of cited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)