Jump to content

Talk:Institute of Public Affairs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.


NPOV requiired

This article sounds like it was written by the PR department of the IPA. I think that sentences such as 'These are the ideas which, throughout history, have proven themselves to be most dynamic, liberating and exciting.' have no place in an encyclopaedia. Also, the sentence 'The IPA's ever-growing areas of expertise include the environment, deregulation, workplace relations, energy, and governance.', although it may be factually true, seems to be phrased to put the IPA in a positive, rather than neutral, light.

I did think about editing the article straight off, but I'd probably end up removing most of it, so I wanted to comment first. Additionally, I think it would be appropriate to state that it is currently one of the most influential think tanks and that it is generally regarded as quite right-wing.

I've since rewritten it. It was largely a cut-and-paste job from the IPA's website. Slac speak up! 09:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Appears that either for or against

Role could be better explained in terms of philosophical links, antecedents. I thought article rights (surely a freudian slip) writes off IPA as apologist for big business Paul foord 07:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for philosophical links - you have a direct quotation from the IPA. In terms of "writing it off" - it'd be nice to do something other than that. Please remove the "apologist for big business" point if you find it unsupported, but other than that, I don't know what really can be done to fix it. Slac speak up! 23:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "speciously", this is judgmental language (meaning misleading) that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--Markbenjamin (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section taking about the funding of the IPA. They refuse to disclose their spources - unlike other Australian thinktanks. I think it can be done in a reasonably NPOV way.Franger 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation)

Please comment. --Karnesky 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA should jump to IPA (disambiguation). Tabletop (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

The ideology section lacks substantiation. The IPA is accused of wanting to remove workplace safety laws. If this is the case a citation is needed. The same is true of the claim that the IPA wants unions to be excluded from workplaces. The section in question also implies that the IPA's policy is driven by corporate interests despite the fact that the IPA's philosophy has been essentially consistent since its inception. The section in question appears to display left-wing bias.
Shippa52 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shippa

If you want a citation - do a google and see what the IPA has to say about "workplace health and safety". Check the "freedom to manage" index and decide whether it's compatible with union presence or not. I don't know if the IPA's policy has been consistent or not - what remains true, however, is that it is driven by corporate interests. If you can find me one citation of where the IPA advocates against big business interests I'd be very surprised. Slac speak up! 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The IPA supports complete free trade. This is a policy against business interests, because it forces businesses to become more efficient and compete internationally. They also oppose subsidies to business by government. This article is unencyclopedic, biased and factually untrue. For instance, the IPA doesn't oppose union involvement in workplaces if it's voluntary; they oppose the government granting special privledges to unions and want to see them treated as just another lobby group. This article needs further citations (especially in relation to political party links) and a more neutral tone. The IPA is libertarian, not conservative. Mookrit (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA is a conservative-liberal think tank, it is a mere ideological coincidence that the policies sought by the IPA are also sought by "Big Business". And as for the things you have directed me to research, I would have thought the onus of proof lied with those claiming the IPA opposes workplace safety and union access to workplaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippa52 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my contention that things like the "freedom to manage index" are anti-union, and anti-workplace health and safety regulation. That is my proof. It's absurd to portray the IPA as supporting the removal of "burdensome" WH&S regulation - that's like saying that it doesn't like nasty people. Either it supports the abolition of WH&S protections and proscription of trade union activity or it doesn't - and contrary to the abundance of evidence that it does, there is no evidence that it doesn't. In fact, that is the reason the Institute exists. Slac speak up! 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide links to publications by the IPA that justify your contention. Otherwise you are just displaying your bias. The onus of proof is on you, as your version of the article is currently up. In particular, I do not believe anyone in the IPA advocates for the passing of a law that would guarantee a union-free workplace or the elimination of every single occupational health and safety law. These are both fabrications. If you can show me a published work that clearly says otherwise, go ahead.Mookrit (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is this article about the IPA biased and inaccurate

Is the IPA a libertarian (neoliberal) or conservative think-tank? Does it advocate no role for unions and occupational health and safety laws?

Libertarian, No See: Link showing moderate IPA approach on OH&S laws This, written by an IPA research fellow, calls for greater flexibility in OH&S laws, not for their complete removal as wrongly suggested by this article. 58.175.234.66 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree The issue here is simple and fundamental to Wikipedia's iron clad rule of Verifiability:

    The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]

    An RfC isn't to ascertain the truth of statements. If there is no source for the statements they must be stricken even if true. Again, from WP:V:

    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

    If (say) Slac added these statements, he must provide reliable sources that back up the assertion. Otherwise, they should be removed. ∴ Therefore | talk 08:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading what the IPA says about itself at http://www.ipa.org.au/about.asp. I always use this as a guide, and believe that what is stated should be presumed accurate unless challenged. It defines itself with criteria that I find both mainstream and reliable. I have never heard of the IPA prior, so other editors may offer good reasons otherwise. Yes, the IPA looks like a fine reliable source. Raggz (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the IPA website is a reliable source. Sometimes it is helpful to couch this as "According to the IPA, they are ....". If available, balance there statements with "However, a journalist for the Washington Post reported that ....". ∴ Therefore | talk 05:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that a think-tank's website is a useful way of describing its policies. A think-tank, as a body that lobbies for specific policies, will always have an interest in couching them in certain favourable terms (for example, it's not likely to describe them as "radical" or "untested" even if they are).

Libertarian?! I eagerly await the IPA papers on marijuana legalisation, the decriminalisation of euthanasia and abortion, gay marriage, the adoption of a "harm minimisation" drug strategy, etc. etc. . . At any rate, I totally reject that anybody advocating increased government legislative interference in any area (eg. NGO activities) can be described as libertarian.

If you feel my points are uncited, it's not a solution to replace them with uncited points/interpretations of your own. Remove the material for preference, or, and this is the solution best in accordance with policy - see if you can find cites for them yourself! Slac speak up! 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that any uncited interpretation should be excised. It isn't a question of how I "feel" about citations. The subject's self-description is valid as long as it is cited and is why I recommend that you couch it in terms such as "According to the IPA". Because of its inherent bias, I recommend finding other verified characterizations for the sake of neutrality. An editor has no business using the terms "radical" or "untested" as this is an outright violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If you find a reliable source that make these characterizations, then they can be included as long as the statements are both cited and attributed in the text (e.g., "A Washington Post editorial writer described the IPA as ....").
The essay you quoted Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy is neither policy nor a guideline. It is an opinion piece that obligates no editor. The burden of citations is on the asserting editor. I understand that you "totally reject" the characterization but you need to keep your opinion in check as an editor of Wikipedia. The purpose of the talk page isn't to discuss the article's subject but to discuss how to improve the article. If someone finds a reliable source that states they are libertarian, then it is a candidate for inclusion. If you don't, then it shouldn't be included. Wikipedia is not about "truth" but verification. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything online seems to backup that they are a privately (mostly business) funded, often termed right wing (in Australian terms), "new right"/neoliberal think tank. They support economically liberal policies (small government, free market economics) and mostly conservative social policies. They are essentially a pro-market think tank - This is easy to backup from online sources. They have described themselves as having a range of policies (from libertarian to the right) but it's what others write that matters. They are well criticised by Oxfam, ACFID. "The Australian" consistently refers to them as "right-wing", "The Age" seems to be positive about them, A brookes writer has them down as to pro-union on one issue....lots of stuff online. What is patently clear is that they are a pro-business lobby group and that the issues they push/method they use are influenced by the unknown money sources - Peripitus (Talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, could someone find a reliable source for the assertion that it has close links with the Liberal Party. Just because the Executive Director ran with the Liberal Party, the whole institute cannot be tainted with that brush. Second, a source is needed for the assertion that it gets funding from the particular corporate interest groups mentioned. Otherwise this reference should be removed, as it's clearly an attempt to portray the institute as being pro-business (as opposed to pro-market), despite no citations. Definitely mention that it refuses to disclose its funding sources, but also mention the IPA's justification for this (that it is a private matter between donors and the institute, as per classical liberal philosophy). The article at footnote #1 is a source for the claim that they are libertarian, because classical liberal and libertarian are generally considered equivalent. Further, "neoliberal" (which is what the original article said) equals "libertarian", so I don't even understand why there is debate about this. All commentators recognise that the IPA wants smaller government (a libertarian position), and remaining silent on libertarian issues such as marijuana legalisation doesn't disqualify the IPA from being called what many commentators have recognised they are. ( Mookrit (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neoliberal" does not equal "libertarian" and it's silly to say so. Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Liberal Party of Australia is libertarian. Slac speak up! 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberal Party is conservative, not libertarian. This is a definitional issue that can be resolved by reading wikipedia articles. Click the wikipedia article for "neoliberal". It notes that it's also known as classical liberalism. Then click the article for "classical liberalism". It notes that it is also known as (or almost identical to) libertarianism. Hence, neoliberal = classical liberalism = libertarian. If you disagree, you'll have to edit the wikipedia articles on these respective labels, which I think are pretty well referenced. Mookrit (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a definitional issue, that was the point of my quip. I've watched the article series on liberalism improve over years and fortunately it's much better than it used to be, though by no means an adequate reference for our purposes.
The relation between neoliberalism and classical liberalism is not straightforward, and to its credit the article doesn't try to make it out to be. In any case, the article on classical liberalism explicitly states that libertarians' equation of "libertarian" with "classical liberal" is disputed. Wikipedia is not a sufficient source to prove any of these contentions even if they were true - I've watched these articles develop a long way and I have more sense than that.
But anyway, even if classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing, which is a matter of dispute, and even if neoliberalism and classical liberalism are the same thing, it doesn't resolve the issue of whether or not the IPA itself can legitimately be called libertarian, since social policy is at the centre of libertarian philosophy.
What would resolve this issue would be more extensive citing on my part and others' to describe the nature of the IPA's advocacy. If we're both interested in improving the article, we should be prepared to find both praise and scorn for the institute and properly cite it. Slac speak up! 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume you're right that social policy is an essential part of libertarianism. I will be posting articles I come across by IPA researchers. Here is one calling for film classification laws to be scrapped (this is a distinctly libertarian position). Mookrit (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Criticism section

This article needs a seperate criticism section. Currently, the criticism is laced in with the other material, often without any credible sources. I have edited the article where citations are needed. For example, the "close" links to the Liberal Party. These criticisms are fine, but they should be made distinct from the rest of the article. Mookrit (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

AFAIK, the IPA gets no funding from Government, and no more than 10% from any one private funding source. In this way, as far as possible, the IPA preserves its independence. Tabletop (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003, the Federal Government paid $50,000 of taxpayers' money to the Institute of Public Affairs to review the accountability of NGOs.[1] --Kenneth Cooke (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hi,i got an assignment about this website and i did not know what argument about it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.83.226 (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yintan (and your cohorts) Stop Undoing My Changes

My changes are NOT vandalism. Your repeated attempts to censor fact is the only vandalism here. For instance, no references suggest that IPA is a libertarian organization. This is merely an assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.235.3 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA's own web site has a large number of libertarian materials. See http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59_2_BERG_RadicalsForCapitalism.pdf for one example. FellGleaming (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

many breaches of NPOV

This is a very poor page - a large number of assertions and non sequiturs, and repeated breaches of NPOV. It needs substantial revision.

On the libertarian / conservative issue, there is the option of describing the IPA by a) what it describes itself as, b) by what some journalists describe it as (hence the 'conservative' label, but that is certainly not the only label journalists use) or c) by actually reading the IPA's material and coming to a conclusion. I suggest either a) or c) - option b) has led the page to this silly argument. I have changed it to 'free market' because that is the way the IPA describes itself, and seems to have a reasonable resemblance to what they actually do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.224 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of either/or. Both should be included, ie what the IPA self-describes as, as well as what people say about it, sourced to RSes. ► RATEL ◄ 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one where to accept this specious argument one would be taking holidays in sunny Baghdad. I've had my fun I'll leave this article to the denizens of the echo chamber to exhaust their oxygen.203.110.235.131 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Right Wing" ?

Climate change skepticism is not a "ring wing" philosphy. It's not a political philosophy at all. Nor does support for free market principles qualify either. FellGleaming (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the term "right wing" has any meaning, it includes support for free-market principles, and again to the extent that the term has any meaning, the IPA fits the bill just as, say, the Australia Institute is a leftwing thinktank. Climate change skepticism is almost entirely a phenomenon of the political right in Australia, but that's a historical contingency, reflecting a belief that the policies needed to respond to climate change are contrary to free-market principles.JQ (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If RSes describe the IPA as "right wing", then it is acceptable in the article. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the extent to which wikipedia attempts to label people and organisations that offer public opinion as "right-wing", "liberal", conservative, "progressive" and so on is troublesome. It seems a very lazy resort to heuristics. In this article, the justification for labelling the IPA as "right-wing" appears to be that four articles, all appearing in the SMH, were lazy enough to apply that label. The fact that one of them is a book review and another is a quote from a labor politician gives the lie to any pretence of neutrality. Thepm (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial is absolutely a right wing position. Scientifically it is all but non existent (see Attribution of recent climate change), and is only notable as a result of publicity campaigns by corporations and free market pressure groups (see Climate change denial), and such groups are generally considered to be right wing (see Left–right politics). As it is almost exclusively a result of promotions by right wing groups, it seems perfectly reasonable to describe climate change denial as a right wing position. 150.203.194.53 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Secrets ?

The article summary of Think Tank Secrets appears to be original research. While the author questions transparency on other groups, it specifically states the IPA is "enthusiastic" about revealing its funding sources (though a critic questions their motivation for such). FellGleaming (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best to stick to direct quotes rather than summarizing - the article looks like a WP:RS for comment.JQ (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original research here is the bit about "referring to the IPA" on Norrington's quote, when that isn't at all clear from the article text. Furthermore, the entire bit seems a blatant attempt to smear by association; the entire funding issue has undue weight given the length of the article. What relevance does this have? FellGleaming (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funding is a KEY issue with "think tanks". The only issue, as far as many are concerned. Hence the Norrington article, for instance. You must stop trying to bury the funding section. ► RATEL ◄ 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position on passive smoking

I have reverted this edit as it does not reflect a neutral point of view and is uncited. --Thepm (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What chance the truth?

What of the absolute correlation between the IPA's views and those of the CIA?

Australians assume it is a CIA-funded front to promote perverse American values like an absence of regulation.

When it's not the permanent Disinformation Ministry of the Liberal Party, of course.

49.176.100.190 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism, criticism, doubt, or denial?

The cited article in the Sydney Morning Harold "The Benefit of the Doubt" uses the word "skeptic" with two very distinct (and opposite) meanings. As defined by those who oppose the findings of mainstream scientists, the article uses phrases like "doubt [about climate change science]" and "attempting to undermine public confidence in climate science." In other words, it uses "skeptic" to refer to those who doubt, or are opposed to and/or working to undermine climate science. It also uses the word skeptical "in the scientific sense" to refer to climate researchers who are "increasingly tired of being called alarmist when they have spent their lives being painstakingly neutral." Since "skeptic" has this double meaning--even in the cited article--it is ambiguous unless defined when used in Wikipedia. "Doubt" is probably the least ambiguous, most neutral, and least verbose alternative. That's probably why the SMH editors chose to use the word "doubt" in their headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute of Public Affairs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research focus: climate science

I am not a climate scientist, but " Years of study have failed to establish a direct causative link between carbon dioxide and global warming. Not one single peer-reviewed scientific publication exists that contains the definitive proof that carbon dioxide is the control knob on climate" had the resonance of egregious disinformation. It took little effort to find this article in Nature (which is - as can be attested by any even marginally scientifically literate person - a peer reviewed journal). I take this as grounds for removal, and will be removing them. The placement of the references at the end of the paragraph in which they appear are also ambiguous with respect to their reference.

More generally I agree with the criticisms re: NPOV, and hope this article receives more thorough attention from a neutral editor. Wikipedia should not be a culture war battle ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElGazWellwood (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A wise deletion. To suggest the IPA's position on climate change has anything at all to do with serious scientific research on the matter is just plain wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free market?

Is it still appropriate to lead the article by classifying the IPA as a "free market" think tank? Their latest report on energy:

  • focuses on energy security, barely discussing energy prices at all
  • seems pretty skeptical of laissez-faire approaches to energy, associating free market energy policy with Labor governments of the 80s and 90s
  • concludes its section on Affordability with the quote: "Government failure to prevent private owners demolishing these assets is arguably an abrogation of national defence"

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/research-papers/energy-security-is-national-security-a-framework-for-better-energy-outcomes-in-australia

Maybe they appreciate free markets, but is being pro-free market their defining quality? 20WattSphere (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_of_Public_Affairs&oldid=1258204449"