Talk:Institute for Policy Studies

message: The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has senior scholars, including Bill Fletcher.
But the Bill Fletcher you've identified is a Republican former holder of public office, referenced in Wikipedia.
I think that the Bill Fletcher who is with IPS used to be the director of TransAfrica, and a long time labor activist.
I picked up this information from an NPR website which interviewed Bill Fletcher when he worked with the TransAfrica group a few years ago.
I also have personally met this Bill Fletcher, and he would be a scholar with IPS, not the one you have connected in the IPS to the other Wikipedia link.
Please respond.
thegeneralwelfare
Thegeneralwelfare (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior Scholar Bill Fletcher 

message: A peacock term is one that tends to aggrandise its subject.  As such it is the opposite of pejorative.  "Left wing" is perfectly fine, provided that it can be sourced, which should not be hard if it is generally accepted. "Extreme left wing" would require more justification, and "Fascist" more still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 
In the question of WP:RS the CBC page that says " So the fact that the Institute for Policy Studies, with which Sam Pizzigati is associated, might reasonably be said to be on the “left wing” in U.S. terms ..." would seem a reasonably reliable supporting quote for the "left wing" claim, but the FrontPage statement about "the ultra-leftist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)" needs a little care handling it, especially if it was standing alone - the unusual nature if the URL is a red flag for a start.
I would suggest going through the references individually, rather than blanket reverting, and challenging only those that have problems with verifiability or reliability.  Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on above disagreement 

message: I don't know what's going on here, but edit summaries like this aren't acceptable, guys. I've protected for a week. If you need it unlocked sooner, please ask me or on RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was complaint that this was really a 3RR violation, and I can see now that it was. I've therefore reverted to the version before the violation occurred, and I'll leave a warning for the editor. I'm reluctant to block him so long after the fact, especially as his account seems fairly new. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: In current American political discourse, "left" is pretty much a smear word - the discussion uses the term 'peacock' - no matter how it's used in the article.  To someone looking at American politics from the outside, left would imply serious, across-the-board socialism or communism; i.e. the dismantling of private property, and extra-legal means of enforcement such as prison camps and secret police.
Likewise the term "right".  If someone is suggesting a coherent set of laws, enforced equally on all Americans, including the wealthy, they are probably conservative and not right-wing.  The reason right-wing is used to describe much American politics is there are a significant number of people in American politics advocating for abandoning the rule of law and the Constitution for extra-legal measures, such as 'terrorism' being defined as including peaceful protest, or the murder of government officials whom one disagrees with.
If the progressives in American politics, say the liberal side of the Democratic party, were advocating for the murder of conservative judges, legislators, etc. and these murders, or attempts, were actually happening, that would be a reasonable situation in which to invoke 'left-wing'.  A reasonable example would be the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Weather Underground.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.178.36 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly pathetic article 

message: As the facts are in question, I am deleting from the 1970s section:
"In the subsequent murder investigation documents found in his briefcase and apartment provided an inside look how the Soviet KGB and Cuban Intelligence Directorate used the IPS.[10] Letelier himself had received a lump sum and regular payments of $1000 a month from Cuba through a Cuban intelligence agent.[11]"
Countering this assertion, John Dinges & Saul Landau, in Assassination on Embassy Row (Pantheon Books: NY, 1980) note that:
"Judge Parker ruled that the defense could not question Mrs. Letelier about the briefcase papers or place them in evidence." No public record asserting that Letelier received payments exists. Dinges and Landau go on to footnote:
"In a December 12, 1978 pretrial hearing, Propper [Eugene Propper, the lead plantiff for the case] said the FBI had "gone over [the briefcase papers] carefully and found no evidence Letelier was working for any government, either Cuba, Chilean, or other"
Eleaver (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Claims: Letelier  

message: Can anyone find an instance where the IPS actually disagreed with the Soviets, and said so? Prague in 1968? Afghanistan? Ethiopia? Angola? East Germany? Berlin? Sometimes, silence is golden. 68.5.46.193 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, so they aren't an Extreme Left-wing Soviet Lobby

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Institute for Policy Studies. 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/20110927015059/http://www.ips-dc.org/globaleconomy/executive_compensation to http://www.ips-dc.org/globaleconomy/executive_compensation
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 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Institute for Policy Studies. 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/20110721064918/http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/213/ to http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/213/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720015436/http://www.transafricaforum.org/files/FSAM%20Chronology.pdf to http://www.transafricaforum.org/files/FSAM%20Chronology.pdf
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) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The 1960s history of the IPC is closely related to another succeeding organization Health/PAC which was the offshoot of an IPS Fellow's publication, the "Burlage Report" which had a significant historical impact.
They should be flagged as excessive detail for IPS's 1960s history itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvind Rao (talk • contribs) 06:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branch off topics on Robb Burlage and Health/PAC to other articles