Talk:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research/Archive 1

Vandalism

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

• MI had nothing to do with The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was written in 1994. Murray left MI in 1990, precisely because MI support his research in this area, as even this anti-Murray piece notes.
• There is no evidence that "Fixing Broken Windows" says blacks are intellectually inferior.
• "Predominantly white and male" may be true, but it is original research, contrary to Wikipedia standards. It's also true for Brookings, Center for American Progress, ATLA, MoveOn, and the Democratic Party members of the Senate. Why single out MI?
• MI is so affiliated with the Republican Party that its most famous scholar publicly came out against Bush in the last election.[1]
• All of the edits are POV.
• All of the claims are uncited.
• WL added an extraneous bracket and capitalization.

FRCP11 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Funding sources

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for thinking skeptically.

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

Needs restructuring / re-write

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

The paragraph:

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

Its position near the beginning of the article, without subheading as "Criticism", in and of itself constitutes POV. Also, the entire critique is without citation.

Concerning the paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on all counts. I don't really have time to take on the renovation of this page at the moment. Are you going to be making major changes? Scharferimage 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to give it a try within the next week to 10 days. Does this sound Ok? Auger shell 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it's important to give the issues that the Manhattan Institute stands for, and then give comment and critique about the validity of their positions from reliable sources. The Manhattan Institute says that it wants to stimulate a debate on issues. That's fine with me. Let's have one. I don't want to give them a free pass for propaganda, especially when they make claims that have been refuted.

I assume that the Manhattan Institute, like most institutions, has positions that are correct and positions that are incorrect. The only way to tell which positions are correct and incorrect is to present their evidence and arguments for those positions and the evidence and arguments (from WP:RS) against those positions. Otherwise it's just propaganda.

Moving all the objections into a "Criticisms" section would make it difficult to follow the strengths and weaknesses of the Manhattan Institute's positions. In other WP articles, the next step is to "edit" the Criticisms section until it gets shorter and shorter, and vaguer and vaguer, until it's not a criticism section at all.

I think the section "People affiliated with the Manhattan Institute include" should go, since it's probably duplicated on the Manhattan Institute's own web site.

I think the article should deal with people or issues at the Manhattan Institute, and discuss them one at a time, together with the debate over the issues.

One of the Manhattan Institute's signature issues is the free market, for example as it applies to health care. I think that the discussion of Zycher and Lichtenberg illustrates what the Manhattan Institute does. But we can't simply allow unsupported assertions to stand without criticism.

Comment? Reaction? Nbauman 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Zycher section is ridiculously disproportional, though. He's a single scholar, not even one of the better known scholars at MI. Then half the article is occupied with a single policy argument made in a paper by someone who I don't even think has any formal standing with the Institute, beyond their publishing one of his papers, and an alternate viewpoint selected seemingly at random. As Auger said, Krugman doesn't say anything about MI. The People for the American Way paragraph is entirely unnecessary, uncited, and out of place. It would be like citing the views of the Democratic Party as the second paragraph in the article on the GOP. I don't see why the list of people affiliated is out of place. There are similar sections in a lot of related articles, the one on the Council on Foreign Relations for exampleScharferimage 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's disproportional. Health care is one of the MI's signature issues. I follow health policy and they are one of the most prominent voices for deregulation and the free market, in the Wall Street Journal editorial page for example.

One of the principles of WP is to add, not delete. If you add the MI's positions on other issues, then it won't be disproportional any more.

I feel very strongly that this article should explain the MI's work on the issues. As long as you include the issues, and allow people to add both sides of the issues, following WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS, that's OK with me.

I think the list of scholars should be deleted, but I don't feel very strongly about it. I was merely suggesting it as something to delete if you think the article is too long or too disorganized.

BTW, Auger Shell, new paragraphs should be added to the end of talk, not the beginning. Nbauman 13:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answered the complaint with the Krugman rebuttal, or the People for the American Way paragraph, the latter of which I think should be deleted, just because of its sheer randomness. If I have time later this week I'll try to beef up this page significantly to deal with the disproportionality issue, as you suggested Nbauman. Auger, what are you looking at doing specifically? Scharferimage 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can accept deleting the People for the American Way paragraph, primarily because it didn't have a good source. If someone wanted to find a link to a specific place where PAW said that, it would legitimately belong in a Criticism section, because it's a general criticism. MI is an advocate of vouchers, and the article should say that, and give their reasons for supporting vouchers. The article should also give the reason why other WP:RS disagree with those reasons.

I added the Zycher passage, after I read his op-ed in the WSJ, because I was familiar with the MI's writing on the subject and Zycher's op-ed was a good statement of their position. I tried to find more supporting evidence for his position and found Lichtenberg's white paper. However, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to give only the MI's claims, when they have never published those claims in the peer-reviewed literature, and all of the experts that I've seen have published articles which refute the MI's claims. Krugman summarized those refutations very well.

Here's the issue: Lichtenberg claims or hypothesizes that veterans are dying because the VA uses a formulary, which excludes new drugs. I read the New England Journal of Medicine and other professional literature for my work. This claim has been examined and rebutted extensively in the peer-reviewed literature, and I don't know of anyone who makes this argument in the peer-reviewed literature. It would be vague to mention the MI's health policy without giving meaningful details. It would be misleading to give those details without mentioning what medical professionals overwhelmingly say, that Lichtenberg's claims are not true. Krugman says it, by refering to primary sources. If you want to add the primary sources to the footnotes, that's OK with me. But deleting Zycher's and Lichtenberg's substantive arguments, or the rebuttals, is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CENSOR, and other policies. Nbauman 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision

I've just started what will be a fairly major revision of this page. I know my edit isn't close to perfect, but I wanted to get started on this and start shaping this page. I've added sections on Law Enforcement, Welfare Reform, and Legal Policy. Let's get this page up to snuff over the next few days. Scharferimage 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman

The cited material doesn't even mention the Manhattan Institute. It thus violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN to include it. Wikipedia is not for your original research or analysis, even if you are correct. I have deleted it. If you have a Krugman piece explicitly critiquing the Manhattan Institute, you can include that, though then one wonders why Krugman is so prominently featured under WP:WEIGHT. Cri du canard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Good edit.Scharferimage (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffuse

CCI and CSLL seem to be mixed up. Polmandc (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. In recent days a lot of new material has been added to this article that is sourced, if at all, to the Institute's own websites. While primary sources of that type are allowed in limited cases, large chunks of the article shouldn't be based on them exclusively. Also, while I'm commenting here, external links should not be added to the text, and references follow punctuation. See WP:V, WP:EL, and WP:MOS.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in filling up a page with information that is copied from the Institute's web site. --Nbauman (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This entire article seems more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Can the editors do something please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogsinheat (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack material

I removed this material because none of the sources mention the Manhattan Institute, which is the subject of this article. What do these long quotes have to do with Manhattan? This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:COATRACK.

"Charter schools have been criticized by education and teaching groups based on a variety of reasons, including charges of trying to bust the historic teacher unions, diverting funds away from student populations in public schools in dire need of funds, and failing to maintain standards of learning, safety, and teaching environments. K12 Academics said the following

Critics feel that it is unacceptably difficult to enforce the provisions of the charter, which they say makes charter schools essentially accountable to no one. The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for this greater accountability. They are accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing. An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits.

In 2011, the documentary The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman was released by a coalition of public school teachers, parents, students, and community activists in New York City. On the website it is stated that

A group of New York City public school teachers and parents from the Grassroots Education Movement wrote and produced this documentary in response to Davis Guggenheim’s highly misleading film, Waiting for “Superman.” Guggenheim’s film would have audiences believe that free-market competition, standardized tests, destroying teacher unions, and above all, the proliferation of charter schools are just what this country needs to create great schools. The film, The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman highlights the real life experiences of public school parents and educators to show how these so-called reforms are actually hurting education. The film talks about the kinds of real reform–inside schools and in society as a whole–that we urgently need to genuinely transform education in this country.

" Safehaven86 (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Re. this edit summary [2], if "This entire set of data is about the criticism of the charter school model that the Manhattan Institute developed back in the 1990's, period" then why don't the sources say so? Safehaven86 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

References

NPOV

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

Right Wing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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) 22:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120707101303/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cj20anniversary.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cj20anniversary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023055752/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/tools/topical_index.php?topic=2 to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/tools/topical_index.php?topic=2

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) 08:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Advert tag

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: I noticed that you added an advert tag to the article, but did not indicate on the talk page what, specifically, you found to be advertorial about it. I have put some work into making this article very thorough and informative, and I have made an effort to try to reflect the tone of reliable sources on the subject. Is there some specific content that you feel is not supported, or something that you feel is missing from the article? If so, then we can work on making improvements, but if not, I would be inclined to remove the tag. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Policy section

This has a whole lot of stating the MIPR's view on things as if it's objective fact in wikipedia's voice. Ex: "With modern medicine on the cusp of a radical transformation due to breakthroughs in precision medicine, the FDA has struggled to adapt its regulations to new scientific advances."198.135.124.75 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Cited. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

NPOV (resurrected)

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

Hey Ttenraba, add such a citing it in the main article would be great, no? Sperxios (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)