Talk:Hudson Institute

Comments
This is a *conservative* think tank, right? Or is it? That's my impression from reading the list of people involved. Why is this not even mentioned?

It says right leaning right at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.49.9 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone removed that phrase in reaction to the removal of "left leaning" from another page. As there seems to be consensus here (and on google), I will return the phrase.  Michael 134.84.96.142 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Right - Left -- or Globalist?
I question the designation of "right-leaning" for this group. They are proponents of the "North American Union" (NAU) -- which the conservative right in the USA strongly opposes. Actually, the stated values of: "commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, confidence in the power of technology to assist progress, respect for the importance of culture and religion in human affairs, and determination to preserve America's national security." -- this is neither "left" nor "right". But in fact, the "stated values" appear to be in conflict with what they are actually pushing.

See this white paper: Negotiating North America The Security and Prosperity Partnership from their own web site. They appear to actually be a "globalist" organization. Note they state (in the paper): "The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America..." But in fact, the people of the USA never asked for such integration. (And IMO, for sure neither the people of Canada nor the USA want this.)

To follow along (from the link) we see: "The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States..." Really? Gosh, since when do we bypass Congress on this?

As it happens, US Congress Representative Virgil Goode has submitted Resolution 487 stating "that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

Further, US Congress Representative Duncan Hunter submitted an amendment to  H.R. 3074. This amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, the amendment passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24. The House later approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included. Key point -- note the 362-63 vote. The US House is currently majority Democrat. So clearly -- on a bipartisan basis -- NEITHER party likes this NAU/SPP concept as pushed by the Hudson Institute.

So Congress is not so keen on this. BTW -- both Congressmen identified above are Republicans -- so I don't think that calling the Hudson Institute "right wing" flies. I strongly suggest that the proper term is corporatist -- and I am making that change now. SunSw0rd 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hudson philosophy
The Hudson is popularly associated with the neo-conservative movement and should be labeled as such. SunSw0rd recommends the term "corporatist". I disagree that that is the case. However, should that be accurate, it is content best represented in the article and not in the into paragraph, keeping with the practice of assigning a broad terminology. Also, I think "corporatist" is inappropriate because of the categorization of italian fascism as a corporatist ideology, which may lead to a negative association of the extreme right with what is a mainstream conservative research center. King of Corsairs (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit was reverted citing pejorative content - "neoconservative". The Hudson Institute is already on Wikipedia's list of neoconservative organizations. King of Corsairs (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the first seven sources I found that directly called the Hudosn Institute "neo-conservative". I passed over as many sources that called members of the Institute "neoconservative". Using the same newspaper archive I couldn't find any descriptions of it as "corporatist". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that neo-con is a more popular label than corporatist -- but then corporatist is not a commonly used label. I applied it because it was more accurate than the previous description as "right-wing". The thing is that neo-con is viewed as some kind of ultra right wing perspective by the Left, and is used pejoratively -- but it is viewed as some kind of Trotskyite invasion of the Right by other conservatives. The problem with the neo-con label at all is that it is usually used by those who are defining an "enemy" -- whether those definers are on the Left or the Right. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute is given as an example of American conservative think tanks in Wikipedia: see United States Think Tanks:Conservative. All of the sources provided by earlier editors that had no links for verification in the first sentence have been moved to a section now called "Further reading"; they all need verification for relevance and reliability. The information provided in the lead paragraph by earlier editors actually comes from the organization itself. I have cleaned up the faulty citation format throughout and provided clean up related templates. The article needs further development and further clean up and citations used need to be reliable third-party published sources and not only information from the subject, which skews the article to the pov of the organization. --NYScholar (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
"In a May 18, 2003, BBC broadcast entitled, "The War Party", Meyrav Wurmser, wife of AEI member David Wurmser and member of The Hudson Institute, candidly admitted that “many of us are Jewish” and that “all of us, in fact, are pro-Israel­, some of us more fiercely so that others." That that that is standing here should be "than". How's that?

What exactly ist the criticism here? In addition: No source. Removed.--Karl Ruster (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A source would be nice, but it's not without meaning to point this out as it places the subject firmly in the conservative wing of American politics. The pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian divide is basically THE defining disagreement (aside from the general stance on foreign intervention) on foreign policy between the American right and left.. siafu (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't think this is a criticism on its own, but a general criticism I've heard of the Hudson Institute is that is basically just supports the Republican party line. This statement can, in context, be a piece of the validation and sourcing of such a criticism. siafu (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

List of funders has been censored
Information has been censored from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.75.236 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Substandial work needs to be done on this section. The Hudson Institute has taken millions of dollars from corporate and other funders. Given its influence in related sectors, this needs to be detailed much more fully here. I have made a start but flagging this in case others are minded to help! JJMysterio (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added in details of climate denial funding that Desmog has published but am not sure if that is a valid source? There is a comprehensive list of donors etc published here that would be useful to analyse and add to this section:

http://conservativetransparency.org/org/hudson-institute/

JJMysterio (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hudson Institute. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060602014535/http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=WinsorCurtin to http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=WinsorCurtin

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson Institute. 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/20160821000431/https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0005/7288240.pdf to https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0005/7288240.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) 14:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson Institute. 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/20080422053007/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/24/2007-09-24_cheney_eyed_israeli_strike_on_iranian_nu.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/24/2007-09-24_cheney_eyed_israeli_strike_on_iranian_nu.html

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) 02:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hudson Institute. 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/20161118225400/http://booksc.org/book/1278667 to http://booksc.org/book/1278667
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613031533/http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=JohnWalters to http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=JohnWalters

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) 12:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

removal of entire "Notable personnel" section
This section is entirely simply promotional and should be entirely removed. This information is just copied from the organization website. Most of these people are hardly even notable. If two or more were, say, presidents of the United States in the past or present, then OK, you can list those two individuals. But that is hardly the case. Really, this entire section is just promotional cr*p for the organization, and it has no place being in an encyclopedia. Think about an encyclopedic article that will be read two hundred years from now. Will any of these people matter two cents? If two or more of these people were world changers, like for example being ex-presidents of the United States, then OK, it would make some (minimal) sense. But otherwise this is just garbage promotional material for the organization. People can go to the website of the organization to bore themselves to death with who the members are. It is cr*p like this list of people as to why this whole article was marked as one giant advertisement for the organization (back in March of 2022). This section should be entirely removed. In the future, ask me how I really felt about this. --L.Smithfield (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support removing any entries with no biographical page link (with a link to a page that mentions the Hudson Institute), or no source other than the Hudson Institute independently establishing notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done a first round of culling, per my above position. It's pretty clear that some of the linked biographical profiles also fail to mention the Hudson Institute as well though, so are also suspect. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am fine with this reduced list. I still think that there are people who are not notable enough to warrant being listed as they are, but at least all of the people listed are indeed notable enough to at least have a WikiPedia entry. Although I have been admonished a good amount myself that just having a Wikipedia entry in itself is not notable enough for being additionally listed or mentioned in some contexts. Some editors are overly strict in requiring notability. I normally do not count myself in that extreme camp. But my objection in this case was both minimal notability and the fact that many on the the list were people who are already listed on the organization website (and were needlessly repeated here). Thanks again. --L.Smithfield (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the policy that applies to this sort of thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)