Talk:New America (organization)

Discussion

Touché. I still wouldn't call them centrists, they're not moderate and they're not looking for a consensus. If they were finding any consensus in the centre they wouldn't be so controversial. Real environmental issues, such as climate change, a common concern of both liberals and conservatives, are conspicuously absent. This fits with a corporatist or neoconservative ideology. Most environmental issues on the site relate to corporate investment and corporate solutions (and where money can be made).

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=issues&IssueID=8

For example, their item about fuel subsidies for hydrogen-powered cars focuses on terrorism and finance surrounding oil. There is not a scrap of concern about the pollution oil causes at all. Additionally it focuses on getting the government to subsidize "a similar federally sponsored project" to the 90% subsidization of National System of Interstate and Defense Highways "to build a hydrogen-distribution infrastructure". The article is asking for taxpayers to solve the problem through money without regulation. The idea is neither a correct nor incorrect solution, but it is definitely far from a moderate liberal idea, which centrism is supposed to include.

So either reply with your thoughts on this or I'm taking out the "Ironically part". I don't think the views show they are centrist, I think the views show they are pandering, generally to the right, and definitely to private business and corporations. I thought I was being fair by including Neoliberalism in there, since they are fairly libertarian too (which also fits into the corporatist category). :\

I think they would certainly agree they are not moderates. I supposed it depends on whether you think the term 'radical centrist' has any meaning at all (I guess bare 'centrist' is confusing, so I'll amend that). While some of their proposals are certainly right-leaning, others - like universal trust funds - are very leftist. And their call for universal service is very anti-libertarian. So I don't think its accurate to pigeonhole them just because -some- of their proposals favor the right. Would you like to see more concrete examples of their anti-right proposals?Drernie 17:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I just don't understand how "radical centrist" is defined. They don't really fall in the middle of a left-right political spectrum, so to me, that's not any type of centrism, radical or not. But, now that I think about, I can kind of see where the moniker "radical centrist" comes from. To me, their "radical centrism" isn't really in the left-right spectrum (like centrism is), but is outside of that spectrum (being 'radical'), and draws from both sides (being 'centrist'). Maybe "radical centrism" just needs a better definition. It just bugs me that "centrism" and "radical centrism" are very different in key ways, yet they share a name which suggests they are working towards the same things (like moderation and consensus), only one of them "radically" so, which I don't think is the case here. Like if I said I was a "radical liberal", it's pretty obvious what I mean, I'm really far on the left. If I said I was a "radical centrist", well, it just doesn't make sense, because I can't get any more in the middle. You could only intuit that I hold my ideals of centrism strongly. Really, I think NAF are "radical" and draw ideas from all sides to form political ideas that are neither left, nor right, nor "centric" they way "centrism" is defined. By calling themselves "centrists" they are actually trying to define the centre of a left-right politcal spectrum. But, since they are radical and aren't looking for moderation and consensus, they are doing no such thing, and are more independent. I suggest they be called "radical independents" which sits much much better with me.

Maybe, but I think that is par for the course. Most people on the Left and Right hate being identified with their radicals, so why should centrists be any different? :-) Besides, the term has been around for a while, so whether you like it or not is the common understanding. At any rate, we should probably continue this discussion on the Radical centrist politics article, where I'll try to incorporate your comments.Drernie 03:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Aaagh. I'm saying that they aren't centrists at all, by the definition of centrism. I'm saying the nomenclature is deceptive. "Radical centrists" have no legitimate claim to centrism. Since, apparently, the term has been around for "a while" I will move discussion to Radical centrist politics.

It's marketing fluff. There's nothing radical about this foundation's work at all. It's positioning.Bruno23 (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Drernie I think that the explanation/questioning of the NAFs political name and such (the second paragraph) should be taken off, since the issues with Radical centrist politics can be better said on the actual Radical centrist politics page. Also there should probably be a direct link to the NAF site? --Ben 08:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drernie I've taken off the explanation and questioning of the NAF. --Ben 00:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me; it was a (non-radical) centrist who complained, and I think he didn't realize the larger movement existed at that time. Thanks, I also added a high-level link. Drernie 18:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be reworked

This reeks of a vanity piece... just awful. Cowicide 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, how about making some constructive suggestions, or even some edits, rather than just complaining? Drernie 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone listened to your suggestion and as a result I have restored an earlier version which removed an un-sourced and irrelevant statement. 144.89.97.30 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to slap a tag to the article yet. However, I think the article could use inline citations. Kushal 14:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT is centrist???

Really? Would anyone consider the NYT centrist? The editorial board hasn't endorsed a Republican president since Eisenhower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.232.242 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which may say more about the Republican Presidents following Eisenhower than it does about the NYT. Besides, if the definition of "liberal" is "endorsed Democrats for President", then does that make the Socialist Worker a hard-right magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifnab25 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What are their positions?

Somebody should write about where this organization stands on the issues. That's the single most important thing about a "think tank", and certainly the reason people come to this article. But they get nothing. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here. They are a think tank, nothing in the article says anything about their position or platform. If they are notable, then there should be a description of their position in many sources, especially for a think tank, otherwise I question their notability. The vacuum of details makes this article not neutral. 67.81.26.23 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Without this information, the article is next to worthless. ---Dagme (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Doherty article

The fact that someone associated with this think tank co-wrote an article, and someone else wrote a blog post criticizing it, isn't notable. I could follow this formula to create a similar "Controversy" section about any article: summarize the original article, summarize the critical response, cite them both, and a "controversy" has been created. If a publication isn't completely ignored, it will probably be greeted with a negative response from somewhere. You need to provide some indication of why this is more notable than any other conversation that's taken place around an article written by a New America Foundation employee. The fact that something can be sourced doesn't mean it deserves to be included in an article.Prezbo (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is information about the viewpoint and positions espoused by the Foundation, which were significant in the public debate about the greatest foreign policy crisis of the year to date. Furthermore, the critical response was covered in a reliable secondary source. The information is relevant, it is informative, it is easily verified. You're going to need a lot more than "I can do this to anybody who's taken a significant position" to get rid of it. Ray^Talk 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Doherty's views aren't the foundation's views. If the critical response was covered in a reliable secondary source then add that source; right now, all you have is an example of that response. You're right, this was significant, but I doubt it's the most significant thing someone associated with the NAF has published, even in the last year, and its significance isn't explained in the article. You should at least not call it a "controversy" or give it its own section, which is really giving it too much weight.Prezbo (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're essentially right, I apologize. I reacted irrationally because I hate "controversy" sections.Prezbo (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of them myself - they have a tendency to become massive overblown collections of dueling quotes. But if it comes to trading off relevant information versus better style, well, Wikipedia seems to prefer the former. After all, style can always be corrected later as more information appears, but getting rid of information tends to make it difficult to retrieve later. Ray^Talk 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Iran election

This sections needs to be changed or removed entirely. It makes the false assertion that this organization was the only one who used the poll results when infact many people did, such as Reuters. It was infact the most used set of polling for their election in the western world. It also makes it seem like the poll is an outlier, when it is not, because polling after the election done by others, for example "World Public Opinion" corresponds with the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.134.145 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Board of Directors

Nearly every member of their board of directors is a known Democrat or Democratic supporter. Are we supposed to pretend this group is really nonpartisan, because that goes completely counter to the definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.179.229 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to state that as well. I would suggest leaving off the "non partisan" tag, as it for some odd reason seems to want to legitimize the organization for that, rather than the work it does. 68.4.92.193 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Bruce

Please review wp:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed by Simonm223. Please do not modify it.
Hardly non-partisan This tag should be completely dropped. New America Foundation has openly declared its desire to have traditionally left-leaning news organizations in every state of the union, in addition to publishing a completely falsified study which attempts to portray "white American radicals" as the perpetrators of more violent attacks on US soil than jihadists. Not only is this a factually incorrect statement (DC beltway sniper attack, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon bombing, Islamic-motivated attacks on homosexuals in Seattle, beheadings of two Coptic Christians in New Jersey, and two dozen other attacks puts the tally at around 71 jihadi attacks in the US, post-9/11; this number also doesn't address the untold numbers of ATTEMPTED attacks which were thwarted, such as the Times Square bombing attempt), but it was rapidly picked up in all of the left-leaning press and repeated without scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=2 http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2015/06/24/33254169-white-americans-are-biggest-terror-threat-in-us-study?d=1 http://mic.com/articles/121263/white-groups-muslim-terrorist-attacks http://mic.com/articles/121268/study-more-whites-committed-terrorist-acts-in-u-s-than-muslims http://www.vox.com/2015/6/24/8838659/right-wing-terrorism-new-america http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-charleston_n_7654720.html But not only did New America Foundation write this wholly erroneous politically-motivated study, it proceeded to lionize those same left-leaning media outlets who chose to run with it and publish it: https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/why-we-need-a-new-york-times-in-every-state/ I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.243.30 (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources need to be in the article itself, not just in edit summaries

Re. this edit, when a citation is requested, a source needs to be provided in the article. Providing a potential source in an edit summary is not sufficient. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

NYT report on Google meddling with the think tank via funding

The NYT reported that Google has pressured the New America think tank which is supported by it, to remove a statement supporting the EU anti-trust fine against Google. After Eric Schmidt voiced his displeasure from the statement, the whole research group involved were sidelined in the New America think tank, which gets funding from Google. Consequently, the Open markets research group went to open their own think tank, which will not get any funding from Google.

References

• According to Sheelah Kohatkar ("The Enforcer,"The New Yorker, September 6, 2021, pp. 48-57, p. 54), Google's contributions were $20 million over twenty years. Kohatkar also quotes Slaughter as saying that [despite coming two days after Khan's Web post], the ousting had nothing to do with the article. Kohatkar also said that Khan et al. also re-established Open Markets. Kdammers (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated article citations and removed clean-up template

Removed cleanup template from April 2016 after adding numerous sources throughout article and removing several sections that were likely the reason the article was flagged for routine commentary.--Nxu188 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge New America NYC & Open Technology Institute

I propose merging New America NYC and Open Technology Institute into this page, as the NYC branch and a technology part of the organisation aren't independently notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support: Content is quite short, so it should be easy to merge both into their respective sections. --MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems obvious that this is not a tenable article--but there's another good alternative, which is deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update Board-chair Information

Hello, I am wondering if it is possible to request an update to this article. I know that I personally can not make changes to the New America page as an employee of the company, but would like to help correct outdated information. In the second paragraph, Eric Schmidt is listed as board chairman, which he has not been since 2016. Linked here is an updated list of New America’s board members as a source: https://www.newamerica.org/board/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcarthur95 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk-page prompt. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done

Kendall Jenner

Love you all my friend 102.90.100.33 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)