Talk:Competitive Enterprise Institute

message: Large sections of this article are direct and unacknowledged repetitions of material from the CEI website. This raises POV problems JQ 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problems

message: is really appropriate/relevant to an artice about CEI? Yilloslime 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  caruba's sourcewatch criticism 

message: Thinkprogress.org? --Zeeboid 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with this website -- is the content user generated?  Cheers, Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 05:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats with the Blog refrences?

message: www.rachelwaswrong.com, www.bureaucrash.org, and perhaps other websites are all "project[s] of the Competitive Enterprise Institute," according to disclosure statements at the bottom of their websites. Shouldn't this be noted in this article?Yilloslime 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEI projects 

message: Ford Motor Companies denial of global warming is a lie. Of course, to them money is more important than the lives of the rest of us. To them Carbon Monoxide is air? How about if they start pumping it into the CEO's office and see how long he survives. My father used to kill puppies every time our dog had them by putting them in a box and run a hose from the exhaust of a car into that box then turn the car on and let it run a while. People have committed suicide by running a hose into the car and letting it run with all the windows up. Years ago there were people who have died because of carbon monoxide leaking into the car. This happened to children and I remember when I was a young mother I always checked my children because it has happened enough that it was a concern to me.
Funny how these big companies don't give a damned about the future of this planet, just about lining their wallets. Where do they all think they will be able to spend that money once this planet no longer can support life? They are all headed to hell, they have obviously sold their souls to the devil in exchange for riches. It seems he also took their brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.224.165 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial 

message: :Image:CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitutelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitutelogo.gif

message: Again, I think the sources of the organization's funding are off-topic unless a reliable source comments on it. Greenpeace (Exxonsecrets) is not a reliable source, and sourceforge doesn't nominally comment on the funding.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of that, the funding certainly doesn't belong in the lede. That a nominally pro-business, or even libertarian, institute, is funded by large businesses is not really notable.—Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Greanpeace/Exxonsecrets is reliable is not settled. But regardless, any organization's funding can--and I would argue, should--be mentioned. But I agree that how much WP:WEIGHT we devote to the issue depends on how much coverage the issue of funding has received in reliable sources. If no one's talking about the funding, then we can say "They are funded by [whatever the groups says--grants, individual donations, sales of DVD, etc]", cite their wesbite, and leave it at that. But if their funding has been the subject of media attention, then we need devote some more space to the issue. For CEI, a quick google news archive search reveals over 100 news articles on CEI's exxon funding (including CNN and USA today on the first page), so our article on CEI really can't ignore their exxon funding and remain NPOV at the same time. Yilloslime TC 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there's no doubt that Greenpeace/Exxonsecrets is not reliable. However, I agree with your analysis of the funding issue; it should be given weight if it's discussed (and not in the context of quoting "exxonsecrets". As I haven't studied the search results carefully, I cannot yet say that the sourced statement isn't "Greenpeace accuses CEI of being funded by Exxon".)—Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I think the IP was partially right and partially wrong. The cited source comfirms that Charity Navigator's rating is indeed only two starts, but it doesn't say why it is so low, nor does it indicate, as the reverted edit asserted, that the rating has been recently reduced from 4 stars. If we can get sourcing that backs up the Greenie2009 edit, then let's use it, otherwise the most can do is note that Charity Navigator's rating is 2 starts. Yilloslime TC 04:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: I have requested a merge, the data about dodd-frank should be filed under the dodd-frank article and I will add more details there.
James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is still hanging about after 3.5years. The useful information is already at Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and it also seems reasonable to have a brief mention of the case at the CEI site; so, I'll remove the stale template. Klbrain (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The word "skeptic" has multiple meanings and to avoid confusion and preserve neutrality it should be replaced by a description of the organization's actual views and activities.  User:Tillman  suggests that replacing this euphemism with its actual meaning is contentious,  What is contentious about saying what the organization does? Tillman also states that the change wasn't sourced. The word "skeptic" was not sourced either and appears to be SYNTH from the CEI website.  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it acceptable behavior to stalk people on Wikipedia?  If not, can you please quit doing it?  As I have pointed out on numerous occasions that you have surely observed, "skeptic" in the context of a scientific subject implies scientific skepticism but in the context of global warming it can alternatively imply global warming denial.  There is an entire page called skepticism that goes way beyond the limited dictionary definition. If it is against the rules to edit multiple articles in a day, can someone please point me to that rule?  I do not want to break any rules and will stop if I'm not supposed to. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Update: IHaveAMastersDegree has now been blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- and won't be missed. What a pain to undo his messes. Grump, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "skeptic" as euphemism for [[global warming denial]]? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Competitive Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130113060218/http://cei.org/centers to http://cei.org/centers
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081126213618/http://cei.org/board to http://cei.org/board
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Competitive Enterprise Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091211233110/http://streams.cei.org:80/ to http://streams.cei.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070704002437/https://cf.iats.missouri.edu/news/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842 to https://cf.iats.missouri.edu/news/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101103114547/http://www.youtube.com//user//bureaucrash to https://www.youtube.com/user/bureaucrash
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140209054814/http://cei.org/centers/center-for-advancing-capitalism to http://cei.org/centers/center-for-advancing-capitalism
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201160314/http://www.cei.org/dyn/staff_list.cfm to http://www.cei.org/dyn/staff_list.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Competitive Enterprise Institute. 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/20060530020431/http://www.factcheck.org:80/article395.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813084834/http://cei.org/node/20855 to http://cei.org/node/20855
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110213655/http://ceiondemand.org/2012/01/05/fred-weekly-law-of-the-sea-treaty/ to http://ceiondemand.org/2012/01/05/fred-weekly-law-of-the-sea-treaty/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110212947/http://ceiondemand.org/2012/01/20/fred-weekly-january-20-2012/ to http://ceiondemand.org/2012/01/20/fred-weekly-january-20-2012/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723144351/http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/cei-losing-money-and-a-profit.php to http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/cei-losing-money-and-a-profit.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have made several good edits to this page that have been reverted by User:Safehaven86. Can someone please help? Energy and the Environment is the CEI's largest program. To quote their aim to "question global warming alarmism" is not non-neutral or in violation of WP policies. Characterizing the Donor's Trust as a fund that allows donors to give anonymously is accurate, relevant, uses a verifiable source, and is not in violation of policy. Every edit I make is being reverted. I am not versed in the dispute process and would appreciate help from anyone who isn't bent on obscuring how CEI is funded and what it does—there's nothing neutral about obscuring.StaceyEOB (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a start on pruning out the self-sourced and unreliably-sourced PR guff, which should help. Guy (Help!) 01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire section labelled 'Environmental policy' is a good place to weed out PR guff. The policy points of this organization are presented without any opposition or criticism whatsoever. This is entire article is propaganda. Sneakyimp (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:StaceyEOB, I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've reverted your edits multiple times--checking the article history, I haven't knowingly done that a single time, unless you are also editing using an IP. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Far from Neutral

message: This article is clearly biased in favor of CEI's viewpoint. This organization has been identified by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vanity Fair and Greenpeace as opponents of climate protection and the ACA. To ignore that charge or to fail to mention it is a failure that needs to be remedied. At the VERY LEAST there should some mention of this controversy *somewhere* in this article. I would like to call out in particular SafeHaven86 and JzG. If you want to eliminate 'puffery' then we would have to destroy the entire section in this article that lists conservative talking points on the environment.
There's no shortage of supporting articles:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/20/anatomy-of-a-washington-dinner-who-funds-the-competitive-enterprise-institute
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/challenge-to-health-law-puts-obscure-think-tank-in-spotlight.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/05/skeptic200705
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/competitive-enterprise-institute-king-burwell-obamacare-pharma
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/competitive-enterprise-institute-cei/
Sneakyimp (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Sneakyimp. There should at the least be a section for Criticism. I also made an edit about the CEI suing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in 2014 over a video linking the polar vortex to climate change (added to an existing list of their litigation) that was removed with no justification. And the funding is buried at the end and should be elaborated on. The Guardian has published a few pieces about their funding and position on climate change.StaceyEOB (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: StaceyEOB, I agree that a 'criticism' section would be entirely appropriate. They have one for both Greenpeace and the Center for American Progress. It would be reasonable to model a criticism section here after one of those. Criticism should be de rigeur for any think tank desiring to affect government policy. I agree that the funding of this organization is a critical point of discussion. The influence of lobbyists and money on government policy is perhaps one of the most salient issues of our time.  —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Elephant in the Room

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: If your organization’s President writes that, "there is no debate about whether the Earth's climate is warming", and that "human activities very likely contribute to that warming" — it seems dubious to say that the think tank promotes climate change denialism. It certainly doesn’t do so now at the very least. Goofyahname (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the section directly above this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Their positions, as quoted by DeSmog, are clearly denialist: ! --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Change Denialism