Talk:Think tank/Archive 1

Out of order?
This page seems, at best, thrown together, and its neutrality is almost disputable. Why does "Centers...or tools for propaganda..." get its own heading. Why is the main "meat" of the writeup under the heading "discoveries?" Why is Ralph Nader's (who founded his own think tank (Public Citizen), and who is connected with the history of the PIRGs) objection mentioned without any corroborating evidence. If it *is* slander, than it has no place here.

"Critics such as Ralph Nader have pointed out that the private nature of the funding of such think tanks may bias the resulting findings. Some argue that the members will be inclined to promote or publish only those results which will ensure the continued flow of funds from the private donors. This risk of distortion also threatens the reputation and integrity of organisations such as universities, once considered to stand wholly within the public sector. Some supposed think tanks may be more accurately understood as a front for a marketing or public relations organisation."

The last sentence of the above reads like a factual statement. It is not. It's somebody's opinion.

"Since think tanks generally prefer secrecy for their internal organising methods, making it to difficult to map their network of connections and interests."

This is a fairly wild categorical statement (and the major think tanks, a la the Cato Institute are very public), and the use of the phrase "making it difficult to map their network of connections and interests" makes think-tanks sound like the Yakuza. What does it mean, "network of connections and interests," anyway.

I'm posting here first because it would be nice to get input from the person who wrote this stuff, before I go ahead and make some edits.

--Bkalafut 03:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

A think tank is not just what the dictionary says
Please note that "think tank" is not a protected appellation, anybody can call themselves by it. Marketing organisations can and do, presumably in order to benefit from some of the associations suggested by the introductory paragraphs here — "high-level research", "theorists", "intellellectuals", "play an important role". Compare article on branding consultancy or international think tank (depending on who's talking) Medinge Group, and especially the VfD discussion on that article's Talk page. I have changed section Criticism, not in any material way, but so as to avoid saying that some think tanks are "truly" called so and others not. Nobody hates promotespeak more than I do, but an on-line encyclopedia should reflect actual usage (however deplorable it may be, and whether or not dictionary definitions have caught up to it), rather than prescribe what it should be. Bishonen 07:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Still problems
We need to include justifications/names of think tanks if we are going to say these things resulted from them. As it stands it is a very putative laundry list. How is the development of the atomic bomb attributable to a think tank? This needs to be explained, it is not at all transparent. --Fastfission 02:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has bothered to try, and I think the labeling of the examples as being caused by "think tanks" is fairly up in the air, I've deleted the section. If someone wants to create a section for things that were created by think tanks, they are welcome to, but please give more explanations in the future. --Fastfission 05:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mapping think tanks
Is there a need for the mapping section? It sounds interesting but doesn't belong in an enyclopedia. commonbrick 03:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Fastfission 05:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Runnymede Trust
I note Germen's sneaky attempt to add the Runnymede Trust to the list of "pseudo-Think Tanks". Clearly, when Runnymede Trust describes itself as a think tank it is using the American definition, unless someone has evidence otherwise. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note the POV wording of sneaky. Definitions of Think Tank found by Google :
 * An informal term referring to an organization or organizational segment entrusted with the sole function of research.
 * a company that does research for hire and issues reports on the implications
 * A think tank is a group of individuals dedicated to high-level synergistic research on a variety of subjects, usually in military laboratories, corporations, or other institutions. Usually this term refers specifically to organizations which support theorists and intellectuals who endeavor to produce analysis or policy recommendations.(Wikipedia:Thinktank)
 * As is manifest from those definitions, Runnymede Trust does not qualify as a think tank. Its sole purpose is not objective research. It does not produce solely analysis or policy recommendations but rather tries to influence the political process by law amendment and political activism. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the American version of think tank, Germen, and please cease being so obstructive and indirect. Also, note that this article on think tanks is itself somewhat out-of-date and a Wikipeia article cannot be used as evidence in other Wikipedia articles. Axon (talk|contribs) 08:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the Google definitions of "think tank" as provided above, Axon, and take an example on this source-based research. External sources take precedence on internal Wikipedia resources. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Two of those are from this very dictionary. None of those define the American sense of think tank. Do not be obtuse. See this page for a list of poltiical biased think tanks that are, nevertheless, defined as think tanks and not lobby groups Axon (talk|contribs) 08:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, political bias in itself is not a characteristic for a lobby group, but lobbyist activities most certainly are. As stated. Secundo: Then can you provide a link to or state here this elusive American definition, which you seem to prefer so much but which is missing from major sources as far as I can see? --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 12:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My edits
I added in a definition and history of Think Tanks, and made it clear that the type of institution predated the term. The definition is from the OED, so it will hopefully stop some debate: " A research institute or other organization providing advice and ideas on national or commercial problems; an interdisciplinary group of specialist consultants." Since there is no official designation of "think tank" it seems best to try not to characterize individual institutions as to whether they are think tanks or not. Instead, it would be good to expand the description here further, as well, and discuss the birth of conservative think tanks in the 1970s, the broadening of the term, and the role think tanks play in policy making today. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

European think tanks
The section currently reads:
 * Outside of Britain, Western Europe never placed great emphasis on the role of think tanks in public policy discourse. Germany and France maintained a few, but most were connected directly to academic institutions, rather than serving as independent institutions in their own right.

This is not true for Germany: all of the major political parties are assocaited with research foundations that would fall under our definition of think tank. Since the information in this section is wrong in many respects and wholly unsourced, I ditched it and rewrote it from scratch, losing any reference to French and East European think tanks. --- Charles Stewart 18:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Think tanks and Edward L. Bernyas - the father of spin and third party organisation
The theory of public relation and spin was founded by Ewards L. Bernays. He has set up more third party organisations in order to promote hide or create confusion about a subject matter that any one else. To day the word "Think Tank" is used instead of "Third party organisation".

A think tank is in most cases any a marketing tool used for some one standing in the bachground and paying. There are several cases of a perverted use of "third party"-technique by "corporate America" and "Corporate Europe". In orther word think tanks is not in all cases "Gods gift to mankind".

Therefore there must be a link to Edward L Bernays, Propaganda andPublic Relation.

Why does "Think Tank" all of a sudden appear capitalized in the last paragraph on think tanks in the United States? This paragraph is vague. Is reference being made to political discourse within the blogosphere?

NPOV Problems in Section on American Think Tanks--Suggested Edits
The idea that think tanks are sometimes used by far-right and/or corporate causes to inject misinformation into mainstream political discussion gets only a vague paragraph or two. Also, the entire section on American think tanks reads as though there are approximately equal numbers of influential liberal, centrist, and conservative think tanks, which is not the case.

For example, the theory of intelligent design is the product of two think tanks called The Discovery Institute and The Center for Science and Culture.

Further, there is a long history of think tanks being used to deny the dangers of second-hand smoke, such as the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute have both received substantial contributions from ExxonMobil, and both have a long history of global warming denialism.

Finally, the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting notes that, of the 10 think tanks most commonly cited in the mainstream media, none are Progressive or Center-Left (one is, if the Brookings Institution is counted) and five are Conservative or Conservative/Libertarian (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2897). Unless there are objections, I intend to add the facts mentioned here around July 20 or 22 so as to make this entry a bit more balanced and full.

Dicksonlaprade 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Make sure to cite sources for any of such edits, though, since they are bound to be controversial. But I think you are essentially correct. --Fastfission 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Apologies for forgetting to provide an edit summary. Appreciate your advice.Dicksonlaprade 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncheckable example
Cut:
 * All think tanks are not purely political, though. For example, The Avalon Table is a left-leaning Hollywood think tank whose goals are to identify popular trends and shape the direction of mainstream and alternative media.

Bad example for two reasons: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)
 * 1) How can "left-leaning" not be political?
 * 2) How can we use this example, if it "enforces a strict rule of no filming, recording, or documentation allowed"?

Linkfarm
Most, if not all, of the external links to individual think tanks in this article should be removed per WP:NOT. --Ronz 19:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and remove them. --Ronz 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Added French independent think tank
I added a mention of l'Institut Choiseul, a French think tank that is unaffiliated with any academic institution AND IS ALSO non-partisan. Linked it to the English wikipedia entry. Bluechili4 09:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing of think tanks (sections 4-8)
I'm not sure what way would be best to organise the existing list, but right now the list is a mile long and I found it confusing. (It seems that they're listed by order of importance/influence?) I propose perhaps listing them by geographical location. Maybe the list should get categorised. Thoughts? Fishtron 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian section
It currently states: "Russian think tanks have experienced a precipitous decline over the past five years." Apart from the unappropriate fact that "the last five years" is a moving time frame, the essence of the statement seems hardly neutral or verifiable. No stats/sources are mentioned.

I'll be the last person here to speak in favor of Kremlin's current policies towards NGOs, but living here in Moscow I cannot help notice that lost of think tanks are thriving. While the quality of their research is often low, political pressure is obviously not the main reason for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.72.35 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, why isn't it? 128.186.238.158 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not independent anymore, so there's no need for pressure. NVO (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mis-labelling?
Why is the Center for Strategic and International Studies listed as both conservative and centrist? The centrist list is there for expressly non-partisan U.S. think tanks, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.238.158 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is a major issue here with labels. While some of these think tanks do, on average, push for policy changes in one direction they don't always and shouldn't be lumped in such rigid groups like they are in this article. They're not, for example, conservative think tanks but rather think tanks that may advocate some conservative policies. There needs to be a distinction here between policy choices and political affiliations. Examples like the Roosevelt Institution are expressly non partisan and making judgments on their political sympathies is beyond the scope of this article and beyond the expertise of editors here. JRWalko (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bucking the trend of scientific thought

 * In recent years, many think tanks have begun to promote causes which are contrary to established scientific opinion.

This is a criticism? I thought science worked this way: every 3 or 4 decades in the past 500 years, there has been a paradigm shift:


 * Germ theory of disease
 * light not needing the "aether" to be transmitted
 * continental drift

Who is saying that bucking the trend is a Bad Thing? And why? --Uncle Ed 23:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Labeling Brookings and FAIR
Annoyed2 removed the label "liberal" from FAIR" and "center-left" from Brookings. I think Wikipedia readers benefit from having some context, especially in the case of FAIR, which we're citing as an authority for the proposition that the think tank world leans right. Wikipedia has FAIR on its list of "liberal organizations," and the New York Times has <called FAIR liberal in the past.

As for Brookings, the NYT has called Brookings liberal or liberal centrist on many many many times. In contrast, Google finds 0 instances of "conservative brookings" at nytimes.com. Binarybits (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're having quite a time with this on the Brookings Institute article, which now has at least 10 sources stating their leaning. Annoyed2 drops by every other day and reverts it to say they are independent and centrist and removes all the sourced content describing their left leaning.  Feel free to put it on your watch list.   Morphh   (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for think tanks
Until we can come up with better inclusion criteria, I think the only think tanks we list should be those that already have their own article. See WP:LIST --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone against moving all the lists from this article, and merging them into List of think tanks? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Think Tanks
I added a section about Middle Eastern Think Tanks and put Turkish think tanks under it and also added a couple of think tans in the UAE. I will add more as much as I can. Abo 3adel (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List of think tanks
I see no reason to have a list of think tanks in this article when List of think tanks exists. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From my USA perspective, I find that the groupings of conservative, liberal, etc. is helpful. I also like the List of Think Tanks page since it has all in aphabetical order. Perhaps an up-front mention of both pages would be more appropriate. 172.168.241.238 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Mike
 * I've tried to remove the lists, leaving discussions of how think tanks work in specific countries. It needs references and expansion, but no longer just duplicates List of think tanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remove the names of think tanks listed in Pakistan, Singapore etc. Since you have Removed the ones listed under India and a few other countries, you should do the same for all other countries to maintain a uniform standard. -- LogicDictates (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Concord coalition
No mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.98.108 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RAND is conservative not centrist
RAND is far right wing, hardly centrist. This needs to be moved.
 * CItation? Argument? Binarybits (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Can someone please bring back the lists dividing US Think Tanks as Conservative, Centrist, Liberal and Libertarian? It was very useful.

I have repasted the Google Cached text. I'm not very good at Wikipedia.

Think tanks in the United States play an important role in forming both foreign and domestic policy. Typically, an issue such as national missile defense will be debated within and among think tanks and the results of these debates will influence government policy makers. Think tanks in the United States generally receive funding from private donors, and members of private organizations. Think tanks may feel more free to propose and debate controversial ideas than people within government.

Although think tanks span the political spectrum, liberal critics charge that conservative think tanks are far more prevalent than their progressive counterparts. To this, conservatives respond that liberals are present in greater numbers on university faculties. In an annual survey, the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) lists the 25 think tanks most often cited in the mainstream media. Their data for 2006 show that the most-cited think tank was the Brookings Institution, followed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Of these top five, the FAIR regards the first two as centrist and the next three as conservative. Regarding media citations of think tanks more generally, the FAIR found 45% to be centrist, 40% conservative or center-right, and 16% progressive or center-left.

[edit] Conservative

Modern neoconservatism is associated with some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The Claremont Institute and the Heritage Foundation are more traditional conservative think tanks.

* American Enterprise Institute * Center for Immigration Studies * Center for Security Policy * Claremont Institute * Committee on the Present Danger * Foreign Policy Research Institute * Heritage Foundation * Hoover Institution for War, Revolution, and Peace * Hudson Institute * Manhattan Institute * Middle East Forum * National Center for Policy Analysis * Pacific Research Institute * Project for the New American Century

[edit] Liberal

On the other side of the political spectrum are think tanks such as the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for American Progress. Economic Policy Institute is a prominent progressive think tank whose research emphasizes interests of low-income and middle-income workers. The Roosevelt Institution is pushing the think tank model by attempting to organize university and college student bodies into effective think tanks.

* Center on Budget and Policy Priorities * Center for American Progress * Center for Economic and Policy Research * Center for Progressive Reform * Demos * Economic Policy Institute * Institute for Policy Studies * Phoenix Group * Rockridge Institute * Public Citizen * The Roosevelt Institution

[edit] Centrist

In order to retain non-profit tax-exempt status most think tanks, including those listed above as conservative or liberal, formally claim nonpartisan status. Centrist think tanks include the Atlantic Council of the United States and Center for Strategic and International Studies, non-partisan foreign policy-oriented organizations, the Institute for Collaborative Engagement, a non-partisan internationally-focused organization, and the The Lincoln Square Institute, a non-partisan presidential election forum. Other think tanks include Brookings Institution a center-left organization considered the oldest think tank in America, and the Progressive Policy Institute, a "New Democrat" organization focused on moving the Democratic party in a more centrist direction.

* American Consumer Institute * American Iranian Council * Aspen Institute * Atlantic Council of the United States * Brookings Institution * Carnegie Endowment for International Peace * Center for Strategic and International Studies * Constitution Project * Corporation for Enterprise Development * Council on Foreign Relations * Committee for Economic Development * Information Technology and Innovation Foundation * New America Foundation * Progressive Policy Institute * Resources for the Future * Henry L. Stimson Center * The RAND Corporation * The Stanley Foundation * Urban Institute * Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

[edit] Libertarian

The most prominent is the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, DC.

* Ayn Rand Institute * Atlas Economic Research Foundation * Cascade Policy Institute * Cato Institute * Competitive Enterprise Institute * Foundation for Economic Education * Foundation for Rational Economics and Education * Goldwater Institute * Heartland Institute * Independent Institute * Mackinac Center for Public Policy * Mercatus Center * Mises Institute * Reason Foundation * Show-Me Institute

[edit] Government

Government think tanks are also important in the United States, particularly in the security and defense field. These include the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Institute for Homeland Security Studies, and the Center for Technology and National Security Policy, at the National Defense University; the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College and the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College.

In addition, the government funds, wholly or in part, activities at approximately 30 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs, are unique independent nonprofit entities sponsored and funded by the U.S. government to meet specific long-term technical needs that cannot be met by any other single organization. FFRDCs typically assist government agencies with scientific research and analysis, systems development, and systems acquisition. They bring together the expertise and outlook of government, industry, and academia to solve complex technical problems.

These FFRDCs include the MITRE Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Aerospace Corporation and others organizations supporting various departments within the U.S. Government.

[edit] Other countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.97.171 (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely we should either have listings for all countries, or none. Having them for the US but not for others is ridiculous and US-biased. For what it's worth, my preference is short entries for all countries, with a full list article separate (as the UK currently has).

--Nscott.odi (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Such lists would be fine, properly referenced with list inclusion criteria, in a separate article, either an existing article or new one. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks guys! If someone wants to divide non-US think tanks by ideology, that would be great! I can provide some info and someone can wikipedia it. I'm still playing around with sandbox. Also, is RAND really centre or moderate? They're pretty conservative on foreign policy, pro-free trade and pro-tort law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.97.171 (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've created List of think tanks in the United States with the organized list from here. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tools and methods
Why no sound discussion of the tools used, the methods, of think tanks? Wblakesx (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)wblakesx

Engineering Perspective
As an engineer and having worked closely with a few think tanks, I was surprised to see how skewed this article is towards political think tanks. Until today, I had never thought of a think tank as anything more than a place where people come up with ideas. I think that political think tanks are simply more obvious because their ideas are brought to the public. In the engineering field for instance, ideas thought up in a think tank are highly guarded and often change drastically by the time they get to the public (as a product). Does anyone else feel that this article focuses way too much on political think tanks?

As an example, Disney has a much advertised think tank (at least throughout the engineering world). Sometimes other companies just call it their "creative design center" or something to that effect. Ol Yeller Talktome 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe
Ukraine and Russia lie in the Europe. Turkey does not. Would anyone mind to change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.84.67 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Turkey does lie partially in Europe. This issue of whether Turkey should be admitted to the European Union became quite contentious. Turkey would not have been considered for membership otherwise. I object to changes based on this error. 63.138.70.132 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete region info because of spam?
The region information is proving to be unmaintainable. I'm ready to remove it all. Anyone have other ideas on how to get it into a state that we can maintain? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Unclear." ?
I disagree w/ the "unclear" warning.

I think it's clear enough. 63.138.70.132 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
I erased a Brazilian consultancy that didn't seemed to be a think tank, doesn't say anything in its website about being a think tank or dealing with public policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Gaspa (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LEADERSHIP BY STRATEGIC PRAGMATISM APPROACH AND BEST PUBLIC POLICY PERFORMANCE
LEADERS RHAPSODY OF EXCELLENCE; A TEXT ON LEADERSHIP BY STRATEGIC PRAGMATISM APPROACH AND BEST PUBLIC POLICY PERFORMANCE.

The above implies the best administrative structure ever in practice, which is what i called EXCELLENT FUNCTIONAL ADMINISTRATION : This administration is excellently functional because it sustains Talent and job performance appraisal,Know-how,Problem solving and Accountability,Public-private partnership on Self-reliance,Social justice and Economic recovery projects.Most importantly is the sustain Policy of conviction over corrupt practices and Good condition of service with the S.M.A.R.T. circle of Strategic pragmatism approach and best public policy performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.23.62 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

LEAP2020
LEAP2020 needs to be added as an EU Think Tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Azerbaijan */ Cut down info to make it commensurate with the others.
Can whoever added more information on the ERC next time please add references other than the organization's website and instead put the information on the article Economic Research Center rather than this page? Also, if you have more general information on think tanks in the country beyond this particular organization, please add that (with references) as well.

Thanks Chursaner (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide Rankings in multiple catagories, as of Jan 2012
Website of a program at the University of Pennsylvania's International Relations Program that focuses on Think Tanks. Offer definitions, catagories and comprehensive ranking lists on various areas of public policy topics. http://www.gotothinktank.com/2011-global-tank-index/

The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania conducts research on the role policy institutes play in governments and in civil societies around the world. The TTCSP was established in 1989 at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia and moved to the IR Program at the University of Pennsylvania in 2008. Often referred to as the “think tank’s think tank,” TTCSP examines the evolving role and character of public policy research organizations. Over the last 20 years, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program has laid the foundation for a global initiative that will help bridge the gap between knowledge and policy in critical policy areas such as international peace and security, globalization and governance, international economics, environment, information and society, poverty alleviation, and health. This international collaborative effort is designed to establish regional and international networks of policy institutes and communities that will improve policy making as well as strengthen democratic institutions and civil societies around the world. The Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the International Relations Program works with leading scholars and practitioners from think tanks and universities in a variety of collaborative efforts and programs. If you would like additional information about our publications and programs, please contact Jmcgann@sas.upenn.edu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.252.108 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We Need More Citations
At present, the "History" section of this article only includes one citation. I've noticed that the other sections are somewhat lacking in this regard, as well. Could someone please go through and add sources to back up the information in this article? (I'd do it myself, but I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, and REALLY don't want to accidentally mess up the text.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.49.250 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

it is
a tank that thinks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.119 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Article issues
Ok, so I started to remove some redlinks, unsourced and primary sourced items (per Wikipedia policy something has to be notable for inclusion -- defined not as "importance" but in terms on that policy page). As I move on, I'm seeing the article has some serious problems even once those are removed.
 * At the top the article identifies as a list, which it's clearly not. ( "The following article lists global policy institutes according to continental categories, and then sub-categories by country within those areas. These listings are not comprehensive, given that more than 4,500 policy institutes exist world wide." ).
 * Most of the sources and numbers are out of date. Some parts rely too heavily on single sources; others have none.
 * It needs to be radically reorganized. Look at the amount of information about think tanks generally in the region-specific sections. Individual region is equal in heading hierarchy to the main sections. ..And I haven't even gone through the whole thing yet.

It's not all bad, of course. A lot of great work has been done to this article. It looks to me like it's just suffered from little bits being added here and there consistently over time such that the result now is kind of a mess. I'll spend some time with it. Hopefully others will, too. What it could really use is information from non-English sources that I wouldn't have practical access to. If there are article for think tanks on other language Wikipedias, that could also be useful to translate and bring to this wiki so that the think tank would be better fit for inclusion in this article. (It's also likely a good source of citations). Thoughts? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine
The Ukraine section describes only Razumkov Center. Moreover, the section looks very much like advertisement of the Razumkov Center. This section must be rewritten completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sozeran (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral?
Because this

A policy institute is often a "tank", in the intellectual sense: discussion only in a sheltered group protected from outside influence isolates the participants, subjects them to several cognitive biases (groupthink, confirmation bias) and fosters members' existing beliefs. This results in surprisingly radical and even unfeasible ideas being published. Many think tanks, however, purposefully attempt to alleviate this problem by selecting members from diverse backgrounds.

is not only not sourced, but also so POV it almost made my head explode.213.220.203.15 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To add: Pew Research Center
The Pew Research Center is a major American think tank. It should be added to the American think tank examples section, with some background (possibly mentioning Pew Charitable Trusts?). Ntrisky (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User Experience and Content Strategy
It remains incredibly difficult to navigate the content on think tanks across Wikipedia. This page is a great example. I wonder if it would not be better to follow the example set by other pages (e.g., Car) and not provide an exhaustive list of examples by country? While that content is valuable, it would be better to feature that content on country-specific (e.g., think tanks in Canada) and topic-specific (e.g., international security think tanks) article pages. As it stands, this article page is unwieldy and obscures what would otherwise serve as a general account of think tanks that could be of great use to students and policymakers.JoLindaw (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Issue in the Think Tanks in the United States section
This section contains the following text:

In 1971 Lewis F. Powell Jr. urged conservatives to retake command of public discourse by "financing think tanks, reshaping mass media and seeking influence in universities and the judiciary."[91]

However, the Powell memo does not contain the quoted text "financing think tanks, reshaping mass media and seeking influence in universities and the judiciary."

Either the reference needs to be fixed to connect to whatever document does include that phrase, or the phrase needs to be unquoted as a paraphrase of the content of the Powell memo...BeaverQB (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't anyone get it? The whole article is really doublespeak for 'Tank Think'. I.e. how can the collective elite 'we/them' impose 'our/their' will upon as many people as possible for the least possible cost. If bribes don't work then that's where the tanks come in.


 * Also, this article is very sparse regarding the sources of think tank financeing. Who pays for these usually young rich graduates looking for a springboard into politics to spend so much time thinking about tanks?1812ahill (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Activities resulting"
Why is the atomic bomb listed under think tanks? I don't really see what the Manhattan Project has which resembles a think tank. Does think tank include massive army projects involving hundreds of thousands of personnel? Also, it might be worthwhile to say that while research was poured into remote viewing, it was eventually ended and concluded unsuccessful. I think the definition of think tank is pretty poor and does not differentiate from other forms of collective investigation -- are all laboratories think tanks? Are all meetings think tanks? Are all concentrated endeavors think tanks? Under the current definition, "yes," but I don't think that is helpful at all. --Fastfission 14:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point, I also felt that and changed "Discoveries" to "Impact". Still, "Events which resulted from think tanks include:" would probably better be "Events which resulted directly or indirectly from think tanks include:"--Chealer 03:27, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why they are any way relating to "think tanks"... is Los Alamos supposed to be a think tank? It would be nice if said impacts would say the think tank that they were supposedly derived from... --Fastfission 03:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well a lot of thinking did go into it....And it was at the time in a form of a ‘Tank or Cylinder’ in all fairness. Jordie Gundersen... (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Americentric
This article is pretty heavily slanted towards thinking only of American think tanks and American politics. Surely these groups exist in other nations, too? Mr. Billion 04:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd be suprised actually. The use of the think tank sort of is unique to North America, and in particular, the United States.  No other country has such a profusion of privately funded organizations for public policy research.  The Soviet Union used to have a number, but most have disappeared since the fall.  China has a few.  Western Europe has a few, but not anywhere near the numbers that you see in the States.  The rest of the world--well, there just aren't many at all.  If the list seems "Americentric", it's for two reasons: most of the think tanks in the world are American, and most of the contributors to en.wikipedia.org are American.  If you want to add other think tanks that you know of, be bold!   &mdash;thames 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As an American who's lived in europe I got the sense that "think tanks" are more numerous, or at least prominent, in the US. At the very least "think tank" is english language slang, so it is mainly used in discussions of anglophone countries (i'd expect a different focus in this entry than one on say "policy research centers", which should be more global). I don't think this article is necessarily too focused on American think tanks, BUT there needs to be some mention right up top about the geographic origins, and usage of the term "think tank". The article feels like it was written for Americans, with an implicit assumption that most of the statements refer to the US. For instance:"Until around 1970, there were no more than a couple dozen think tanks, mostly focused on offering non-partisan policy and military advice to the United States government" If authors take think tanks as a primarily American phenomenon (with parallels in other countries) then this should be stated at the outset. Kurtosis 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There may be a large number of think tanks in the US, but it is certainly not just an American "thing". There are large numbers in the UK for example. They tend to be much smaller and less well funded than their American counterparts, but they are certainly influential in British politics. Riesgo22 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Think tank trust/credibility
There have been a number of interesting pieces around think tank trust and credibility to come out recently. E.g. On Think Tanks report into factors that affect think tank credibility and We are Flint report into US and UK perceptions of think tanks (specifically including levels of trust in think tanks).

https://onthinktanks.org/publications/de-constructing-credibility-factors-that-affect-a-think-tanks-credibility/

https://weareflint.co.uk/think-tank-hub/

Feels like there's a natural fit in the US section where it talks about Brookings' conflict of interest/the Eric Lipton article. May also be worth having a separate section on think tank credibility full stop. There seems to be a lot of talk around the topic at the moment (see Think Tank Watch for example). What do you think? Riesgo22 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Are these reliable sources? What do we know about their editorial team and their track record? MPS1992 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * They are yes. On Think Tanks is an industry body funded by organisations like the Hewlett Foundation and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. It seems to be mostly focused on non-US think tanks (though I just noticed a forthcoming event they'll be running in DC so I guess that's changing). We are Flint is a communications consultancy that works for a lot of think tanks and produces a lot of think tank focused content (see their blog). Several of them come from much larger agencies. Check both of them out and see what you think - they look credible to me. Riesgo22 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks rather like advertising to me. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of unsourced listcruft and non-notable COI spam
Large parts of the regional lists contained unsourced information, entries without any independent evidence of significance and outright self-promotion. I have consequently trimmed this excessive listcruft throughout (keeping a few borderline redlinks with claimed university or government affiliations) - Wikipedia is neither a link directory nor a free-of-charge PR platform for dozens of COI editors. Of course entries based on independent reliable sources with likely encyclopedic significance can be re-added by any uninvolved good-faith editor. PS: Many of the country-specific lists without additional prose could probably just be removed and hatnoted to the main list article (would avoid redundant maintenance). GermanJoe (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have also removed recent additions of directories, blogs, search engines, etc. Content should be based on independent reliable sources, and articles are not supposed to serve as simple link directory or yellow pages for related organizations and providers. Parts of the addition were also plagiarizing the organizations' own PR statements. GermanJoe (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

1911 date
I don't know the newspaper |this came from, but. Thmazing (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation to amend a word
RE: "Think-tank funding often includes a combination of millionaire donations ..."

Might it not be better to just say "wealthy individuals" (or some, better version of individuals that I can't come up with ... couples, groups, etc.?) donations..." Some might actually be billionaires, some might be 999,999aires - not quite millionaires.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:2A45:9F00:4D99:6078:AA7D:88DE (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

what is a 'think tank'?!
ive seen this in the media for years and i still dont understand what the hell they are talking about. any definition with the word 'synergistic' is, for the most part, useless.


 * Think of it as a giant tank… or container where the most intelligent people (in one or various fields of expertise) are thrown in and must devise, formulate and come to a general understanding of a certain topic :)

-G

The article is useless. It says nothing about the origin of the phrase "think tank". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just think of a bunch of smart guys sitting and deciding on policies of an organization. That's the simplest definition of a "Think Tank" for you Bobby shabangu  talk  12:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * often think tanks exist to create propaganda for a particular interest group, you'll have "The Institute for Traditional Energy Research" funded by ExxonMobil, or "Center for the Anthologizing of Democracy" funded by the Clintons. It's not necessarily the most intelligent or qualified people; it's the people who's values (see: material interest) align with the foregone conclusion the think tank was created to find and validate. 161.149.63.239 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the "Center for the Anthologizing of Democracy" a google search returns no hits. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This article does not adequately describe the concept of a "think tank" or discussions around that concept
It instead is largely composed of an enormous and poorly organized list section that is redundant to List of think tanks

Notably absent is any section describing the criticisms of think tank actions like writing legislation, with discussion about think tanks as a concept in the article limited to the "history" section that portrays them almost entirely as "research institutes" (not even the lead section in the article agrees with that portrayal). InkTide (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)