Talk:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Map
Which map? This map:

http://mapsforus.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/1941world.jpg

I'd love to get a bit of history behind this map made by the Endowment for International Peace in 1941. Does anyone know anything about it? Unfortunately i found it on a joke website, but i think it's legit. If anyone has a higher res version so I can at least read the fine print.

Arthurian Legend 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

s/advertisement/NPOV/
Nearly everything in this article has been lifted directly from Carnegie's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * i started by putting a bit of info from a Cambridge Uni journal, but lots more work is still needed... Boud (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

reference did not contain info directly relating to wikipedia text
This URL does not seem to contain anything specifically mentioning either Hanes or J Matthews. i substituted a URL which does say something along these lines. Also, i replaced "spring" by "early": wikipedia is not a northern temperate zone encyclopedia, it's global. Boud (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

reinstatement of criticism of Jessica Mathews by the Georgetown Solidarity Committee by a user in violation of NPOV and BLP
The entry previously removed violates both NPOV (neutral point of view) and BLP (biographies of living persons) policies in multiple instances. In fact, Jessica Mathews has not become a source of controversy for the Carnegie Endowment. The statement is conjecture - the anonymous authors of this entry cannot speak on behalf of the Endowment without being identified as such. The language is therefore patently misleading with the malicious intent to spread controversy and should be removed. The claims of rights' violations are outdated and present only one side of a dispute that is in the process of being settled by the two parties concerned: Hanesbrands Inc. and The Workers Rights Consortium of Hanesbrands Dos Rios Textiles. The facts are that the claims have been investigated by an independent investigator as well as by Hanesbrands Inc. A summary of the findings of those investigations can be read at http://www.hanesbrands.com/NR/rdonlyres/FF1D2B9D-6068-46A6-A9BE-410D51580D46/32/HBIResponsetoWRCDosRiosAssessmentandIndependentInv.pdf Both investigations found the significant majority, but not all, of the allegations to be false. Several managerial issues related to overtime pay practices, employee contract language and improved corporate management oversight regarding certain local decisions were discovered and addressed. Hanesbrands has already made changes in these areas and has communicated them to employees, including new overtime policies and the retroactive payment of overtime, above the legal requirement, to all current and former employees. Hanesbrands is currently awaiting their reply to a full proposed contract. As the BLP policy states, the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. The authors that initially added incorrect and incompletely sourced language failed to satisfy this burden. The editor that restored the language on the basis of subjective claims assumed the language as current and factual without any attempt to determine whether any claims are in fact true or current, also failing to satisfy this burden. Both actions create significant doubts about the legitimacy of the entire entry as a trusted source of factual material and degrades the value of Wikipedia. As also stated in the BLP policy: when in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Removing the language will restore the entry to this editorial benchmark and fulfill the BLP policy. If and until this language can be factually stated from reliable sources, it should not appear in the entry at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.99.100 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this comment is almost a decade old now, but I think it is worth noting that a simple whois to the IP address of the anonymous commenter indicates the actual origin: "Organization:  CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE (CARNEG-13)". --104.152.104.51 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Material lifted from Institute website
On 28th October 2008, User:Bkh2107 introduced a chunk of material taken from the Institute website at Endowment History - see. I will try to remove this now. Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to 25th October. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Should be called 'Carnegie Endowment for International War". ---Dagme (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had been wondering about that, too, but you said it. Maybe someone can do an interview with the Chief of the centre and ask them why is it that none of these many organisations and prizes ever achieve peace, but more wars. Institutions who do not perform and achieve the exact opposite are not worth their salt.


 * The reason why I came here is that this is not right "promote the concepts of disinterested social science research ...". 'Disinterested' should probably be 'unbaised and free from special interests'. If they want to be for peace they should fight what used to be called militarism where social science research is of very limited value. 58.174.224.15 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly endorse the previous commenter's arguments. 20 years Afghanistan War - and where were they? They waited for Trump's people to make an agreement with the Taliban in Qatar? Where are they now when we have so much military blockbuilding with AUKUS and Quad that guarantees a big new war, not peace. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2195:EF7D:F09C:3EB6 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No criticism section
Is CEIP so uncontroversial that there is no warrant for a criticism section? I doubt it. I think that some of the concerns raised by other posters in this talk section can be given form and substance. My experience with CEIP people as an academic was NOT positive. They tended to view colleagues in academia as a source of inconvenient arguments and facts, and appear to be driven by a definite agenda. CEIP, like NED, the USIP and other DC area outfits is a government captured NGO. It is effectively a branch of the US Department of State. I will not be commenting beyond this, because I have come to experience wikipedian intolerance of arguments and edits, and I will not write the criticism section myself either. I invite friends of CEIP to write the criticism section themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.35.130 (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I had just been on one of their sites, re Russia and Civil Society. They criticize the Russian law that organisations who operate in the political space need to register as agents when they accept funds from outside the country. I find it perfectly acceptable that Russia does not tolerate political activity steered from outside, just as America does not tolerate it. You want to be politically active? Join a party or found one, don't hide behind an NGO that is only accountable to their funders. They also seem to want more civil society activity in the political sphere. They ought to know that in most countries there have been economic reforms that cause people to struggle with long working hours and insecure jobs where keeping a roof over your head takes up the whole man or woman. Political activity is for those who get paid for it or those who come from a wealthy household. The activities described on their site have nothing to do with creating peace, they are meant to divide. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2195:EF7D:F09C:3EB6 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There you go if you want some criticisms, found this on the french wikipedia:
 * Since 1991, the United States spent $5B to fund Yutchenko's campaign via NGOs such as Carnegie Endowment
 * Carnegie Endowment participated towards the end of the 1990s in the United States' efforts to do a regime change in Serbia by toppling its then president Slobodan Milošević --Lyrono (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090613014720/https://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/special/periodicals/ieb/ to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/special/periodicals/ieb/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120206211444/http://www.carnegieendowment.org/resources/index.cfm?fa=newsletters to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/resources/index.cfm?fa=newsletters
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120202084103/http://carnegieendowment.org/resources/index.cfm?fa=signup to http://carnegieendowment.org/resources/index.cfm?fa=signup

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Penn ratings of think tanks
This article states that "In the University of Pennsylvania's "2019 Global Go To Think Tanks Report", Carnegie was ranked the number 1 top think tank in the world."

The Wikipedia article on the Brookings Institute states that "The University of Pennsylvania's Global Go To Think Tank Index Report has named Brookings "Think Tank of the Year" and "Top Think Tank in the World" every year since 2008."

Can both of these be correct? AndrewColeman2010 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)