Talk:Peterson Institute for International Economics

message: Can experts please include some critical thinking in this article?
The Board of Directors is a "Who's Who" of banksters and other finance industry crooks. ---Dagme (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you post your information here on the talk page (with references) another wikipedian could check it and add to the page? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

text: No. And please do not change section headings to reflect such a point of view.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism 

message: Here's a column from the New York Times that refers to the Peterson Institute as "the locker room of the Team Globalization and Free Trade cheering squad." This column gives a better idea of what the Peterson Institute is all about than the current entry. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/whats-our-duty-to-the-people-globalization-leaves-behind.html
What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?
Steven Rattner
The New York Times
JAN. 26, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT column 

message: I propose that we delete the section on "The institute's Building." 
For one thing, none of the sources meet WP:RS, since they come from the Peterson Institute's own PR material, and aren't independent third-party sources. In other words, it's WP:OR. 
But most of all, it's PR fluff that is useless to anyone who is interested in the Peterson Institute's actual policies and contributions to society, which is what this entry should really be about. --Nbauman (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While PIIE is the source, the facts asserted can be checked and verified. This overcomes the RS problem. Also, the info is noteworthy, albeit not so much text is needed. (At the moment, though, the piie website is not linking, so additional verification is not possible.) I'd say keep, but trim it down to a summary style presentation.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not noteworthy under wp:weight unless multiple independent sources have reported it. There are so many more important things to write about the Peterson Institute. Globalization affects everyone. The Peterson Institute's architecture doesn't affect anyone who doesn't work in the Peterson Institute. --Nbauman (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, (1) This section has no WP:RS. The source is a dead link. (2) Even if it were an active link, it is to a primary source, the Peterson Institute itself, and WP:RS requires secondary sources. If architectural magazines had an articles about it, that would justify including it, but it seems to fail the noteworthy test. How do you justify its noteworthiness? --Nbauman (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "The institute's Building" 

message: The Peterson Institute was in the news for publishing a critiqe of Donald Trump's policies against free trade, calculating the number of American jobs that would be lost if Trump's policies were enacted. I don't have time right now to follow this up, but there are stories about this in almost every major news publication that covers U.S. domestic or foreign policy. --Nbauman (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I, and others, await your suggestions for article improvement.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My first priority is for this article to comply with the Wikipedia guideline WP:NPOV and include critics of the Peterson Institute. Once that's done, it would be nice to include their Trump policy, since for many readers that would be a favorable stand by the Peterson Institute. I was suggesting that to those who are looking for favorable things to write about the Peterson Institute. But first things first. --Nbauman (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not every single article requires a criticism section. This is a highly respected economics think tank that usually has its research peer-reviewed by third party economists. You can't just add a criticism section and source it to amateurs writing in newspapers. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticizing Trump