Talk:Institute of Public Affairs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Institute of Public Affairs is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Institute of Public Affairs article.
Article policies

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

[edit] 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
I suggest reading what the IPA says about itself at [1]. 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)
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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)