This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance). Anti-war High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Nearly everything in this article has been lifted directly from Carnegie's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On 28th October 2008, User:Bkh2107 introduced a chunk of material taken from the Institute website at Endowment History - see [1] . I will try to remove this now. Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to 25th October. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[2][3][4]
• 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[5] --Lyrono (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]