Talk:Center for Economic and Policy Research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is there any relation to the European CEPR?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Left?

message: 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)
thread_title: Chavez

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Chavez

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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".  Letter to the editor in response.
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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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." In prior discussion I provided additional sourcing verifying Kornblith's involvement, if it matters. Rd232 talk 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  Mm, just read the original letter again, and noticed it does actually quote Weisbrot - about a letter which was not to do with VIO. 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please elaborate. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Contentious material moved from article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Geographic focus outside U.S.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Venezuela section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Positions on very particular subjects 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Mark Weisbrot]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of meat puppetry 

message: : here. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Restored text which altered direct quotes from New York Times 

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