Talk:List of think tanks in the United States

Untitled

Hey guys, I removed Ludwig von Mises institute because it claims pretty outrightly that it is not a think tank and does not try to influence policy, simply observe and criticize it. Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.164.133 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we reorder the list by state please? These kind of groups tend towards group think and so tend to reuse the same symbols in their names over and over, but if I have a list by state I can tell at a glance if its a different group that simply thinks exactly alike. Hcobb (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List titles are OR

Can we get a ref that says that the Orc Pillage Institute is Chaotic Evil rather than just assigning them to that list ourselves? Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reorder by Name and Location?

Please consider (aside from Orc Pillage Institute of course) getting rid of the "orientation" categories. They do not make sense. I understand that someone set them up that way, but Brookings isn't "centrist" by any stretch of the imagination, nor really are the Urban Institute or Pew. The agenda of all is to pursue research in support of various social and environmental causes thought to be "liberal." I think your listmaker must believe these things are "centrist" and they are not. And RAND cannot be politically categorized; in fact, many cannot and should not. ASterling (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the {{unreferenced}} template to the page regarding this. I agree that some of the "centrist" think tanks are really more "center-left" if not "liberal". However, I do not think it is beneficial to group by anything else other than by ideology; an "other" section should be utilized if a few think tanks are not necessarily ideologically-based, such as RAND. If I can find the time, I shall try to find some sources. -64.85.217.92 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need/want ideology sections? While some think tanks wear their ideology on their sleeves (like Heritage Foundation), others hide their motives, are "independent" research wings of interest groups, or strive to be truly non-ideological research institutes. If we want to get technical, all of the think thanks in the United States have to at least pretend to be "nonpartisan" in order to qualify for tax exemptions. My only worry with switching to a location-based system is that we'll be inviting the inclusion of a ton of non-notable regional think tanks that are little more than state-level lobbyists. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing categorization

The separation into category based on political ideology fails verifiability. There are no sources for this entire list justifying inclusion, much less categorization. Very few of these bodies assert their own political ideology. Most say something like XXX supports traditional American values on the role of government which would be WP:SYN to call "a conservative organization." The inclusion criteria for this list is probably WP:VERIFY also, but one thing at a time. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• AOL me-too Agree. Hcobb (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification

This article needs additional citations for verification. Almost nothing on this page is cited. Right cite (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's get Talk:List_of_hunger_strikes#Unreferenced_page resolved, as it's the same concern, different article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This page violates WP:LISTVERIFY. Thanks! Right cite (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll not respond here until there's something specific to this article not covered in the hunger strike discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

citations

not able to cite the sources properly inside the list. the issue is that they are not populating correctly in the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editas18 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

this is the lidt of globohomo pushers

They are not "think tanks", they are public opinion swayers used by the united states CIA and other globohomo pushers to form public perception of things on how west and the usa are great and noble. There goes without saying that their manufactured agenda is much heavily constrained by the essence of a very limited overall worldview of the yanks, by the malaise of which they are unable to comprehend things as they are, blundered by the walls of ignorance, by the whispering of their well fed guts, by perverted lust and by "all the good things" they can afford by the virtue of their stiff toilet paper they call united states dollar. Satanic as they go. 178.121.28.100 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Improvement

Would like to start a new discussion about ways to improve the list. The lead might need to be expanded to elaborate on the evaluative criteria used to assess inclusion/exclusion (e.g. There are some organizations that are known as or otherwise described as advocacy organizations rather than think tanks - why were they added?). The only reference cited (https://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/think_tank_search/US) does not match the list of think tanks included here. W9793 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

For now I've removed "notable" from the lead as there is no clear criteria for assessing nobility. W9793 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)