Talk:Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis

In order to distinguish the Manhattan Institute from the Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis (www.manhattanpsychoanalysis.com) should I first create a listing for the organization? After which we can add redirectors from the MI listing and from the MIP listing that clarify the different organizations?

--cbelz

NPOV (resurrected)

This article reads like a press release. It thoroughly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It is full of quotations that praise the writings, but there is no mention of the fact that many of the positions advocated are controversial or have been thoroughly debunked. For example, the section describing "broken windows" policing states that crime in NYC declined when Bratton was police chief, implying that the "broken windows" policy works, but neglects to mention that crime rates all over the country decrease at that time, and that C. R. Sridhar compared cities that used "broken windows" policing to cities that used other policies and concluded that "broken windows" did not in fact reduce crime. Similarly, reading this articlem a reader has no idea that "supply side" economics is widely regarded as more a rhetorical device for justifying tax cuts for the wealthy than a theory that accurately describes our economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttenraba (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ttenraba, add such a citing it in the main article would be great, no? Sperxios (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Energy and environment

There seems to be biased language in this section (as well as in other sections of the article). Specifically, it includes the following sentence: "Bryce has argued at length that, even with exorbitant government subsidies, renewable energy sources are simply inadequate to meet America's energy needs." The use of the word exorbitant in this context implies that large government subsidies are unreasonable, which is not a neutral position. Robert Bryce may believe that large subsidies are exorbitant, but it is not clear from the context here that this is merely his opinion. The phrase "simply inadequate" could also be edited to remove the word "simply" in order to appear more neutral.
This sentence is even more biased: "In keeping with its commitment to free-market economic principles, the institute is opposed to high-cost, inefficient government mandates and subsidies." It reads as like a statement from the organization itself rather than a neutral party. It is completely unclear what kind of mandates or subsidies should be considered high-cost or inefficient, and seems to take the inefficiency of such things for granted.
Elsewhere, Bill Gates is quoted praising the book The Bottomless Well by Institute senior fellows Peter Huber and Mark Mills. The citation for this links to an article put out by the Manhattan Institute themselves. I have not been able to find a more neutral source confirming this quote. In any case, Gates's opinion on the book doesn't seem relevant to the article, and its inclusion is likely to bias the reader. Jackk225 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Statements about climate change are also presented in a way that is not compliant with policy. Secondary reliable sources about the institute should be used and summarized rather than primary advocacy material (WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF). I tagged a source as such and the article has a relevant neutrality tag. I don't have the time to work on this article at current time and invite anyone interested to help per WP:BOLD. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a stab at being bold and deleted the Cass primary-source quote, replacing it with material from a New York Times story that describes his and the institute's position on climate science. 24.163.84.190 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)