Talk:United States Institute of Peace
|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This "article" seems more like a "stub", and does not presently seem to be very fleshed out.
I'm wondering, how can an institution governed by a board "appointed by the president of the United States", as the article says, be nonpartisan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
The inclusion of Daniel Pipes Board of Directors is enough to discredit this organization as non-partisan or pro peace. Pipes was appointed by Bush one of his controversial recess appointments. He is literally an anti-peace, pro-war hawk, zionist neocon at heart, who's soul purpose in life is to marginalize and malign muslims and the left. 
I totally agree. The description of this entry as 'bipartisan' is ridiculous. It practically reads like a who's who of partisan (mostly conservative) appointees:
First off, Signed into Existence by Ronald Regan:
Board of Directors:
J. Robinson West= Chairman of an Energy Company, member of the National Petroleum Council, Council on Foreign Relations, and a former Assitant Deputy Secretary of Defense and served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Budget and Administration.
Holly J. Burkhalter= International Justice Mission a Christian-based organization, one that is connected to other Evangelical organizations.
Anne Hessing Cahn= a former US intelligence officer.
Chester A. Crocker= worked on Regan's 1980 election campaign and worked in the Regan administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; this is the guy who thought we were being too hard on South African for Apartheid.
Laurie S. Fulton= Williams & Connolly, the same law firm that represented Oliver North in the Iran Contra affair and Enron's legal firm.
Charles Horner= former General in the US Air Force (Warriors in Charge of Peace?) and member of the Hudson Institute, a self described conservative think-tank.
Ron Silver= a conservative blogger and actor/producer/director who was appointed to the institute by George W. Bush.
Judy Van Rest= International Republican Institute, an organization that claims credit for having united and organized a diverse range of "center and center right-wing" political parties and been embroiled in an number of political controversies over meddling in Haitian politics.
Members ex officio:
Condoleezza Rice= Bush administration former Secretary of State.
Robert M. Gates= Secretary of Defense.
Frances C. Wilson= Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps.
Not one member of any activist peace group. Not one well known Leftist Activist, Politician, or Writer, only a bunch of energy people, military people, and conservatively appointed people.
The description of this organization as bipartisan needs to be discussed, and if not discussed I will take it upon myself to change it soon.
I disagree and think "bipartisan" is much more accurate than "non-partisan." Because of course they are partisan, but it changes depending on who is in power at that time. Making them bi-partisan. They essentially agree with the democratic and republican foreign policy platforms, which are extremely similar. You aren't going to see them working with Nader or the Libertarians any time soon184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
99% of "facts" sourced from the official site
Exactly who wrote this Wikipedia entry? All I know is that the new HQ is supposed to cost 180 million. NYT news service, E. Bumiller. Where is the comparison with the other Think Tank Row companies? Another RED FLAG that this entry seems to have been written for people who work for, or are advocates, of this organization. Outside sources needed immediately. Stub!!! --Torchpratt (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Outside sources to the rescue. A good Z Mag expose: http://web.archive.org/web/20070807022129/http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2007/diamond_print.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
One achievement is listed as, "Advocated the US invasion of Iraq and subsequently worked with community leaders to build peace neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Iraq." Does this Institute of Peace actually consider this an achievement? This seems like an oxymoron.18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I wish it was still in the article. There certainly needs to be something that says that despite their name, they are generally for US military intervention even in highly controversial instances such as the iraq war. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Updating the page
Hi, I'm Steven Ruder. I work in the Public Affairs office at the U.S. Institute of Peace. I'd like to work with the community to help update the page about USIP. Using third-party sources, I'd like to add some information about USIP's history, budget, programs, and missions. I'd also like to move some of the introduction text to a new Overview section below the table of contents. Would that be in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines? If we can help the community answer any questions about USIP, or provide links to any resources, we're happy to do that. Sruder (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Steven Ruder here again. I've made a few updates to the page, such as updating the Board of Directors/Leadership; updating information on the budget, headquarters, history, and publications; adding a section on USIP's mission, and reorganizing the page a bit. I've tried to add references wherever necessary. I removed the short list of notable fellows because I thought that there'd be no way to create a concise list of USIP fellows. I hope I've followed all the relevant Wiki editing guidelines, but definitely defer to the community's expertise if I've committed any errors. Sruder (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- What this needs most is some WP:RS for criticism, which this article lacks. We also need some WP:RS discussing the Institute's support for the Iraq war, and how they reconcile that with their mission to prevent violent conflict. A lot of us have difficulty understanding that and would like some clarification. --Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Too Much Sourcing from USIP Itself
Most of the sourcing in the article is from the US Institute of Peace itself, with most remaining sources being Op-Eds or governmental sources (or both, as in government officials writing Op-Eds). This gives a very rosy view of the work of the institute. Take the "Additional Work" section. The article repeats USIP's characterization of its own work, e.g. "Worked with community leaders to build peace neighborhood-by-neighborhood in Iraq." Someone from another perspective might characterize this work as "Aiding US military operations in occupied Iraq, neighborhood-by-neighborhood." Of course, we should just state what it is that USIP actually did, without including POV statements about "build[ing] peace" or "aiding occupying military forces."
The article needs more neutral sources that characterize USIP's work. Content which cannot be properly sourced should be removed. I won't take this step immediately, so that people who work on this page regularly can supply more appropriate sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)