Talk:Maxim Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Conforms to NPOV? 2 Rationalising information 3 Balanced Commentary 4 Supporting Citizen Participation 5 nzvotes.org contained text matching text in 2002 Challenge Weekly Christian Newspaper article

[edit] Conforms to NPOV?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Some of the language is ambiguous, misleading and cannot be verified. For example:

“Maxim claims not to be an overtly Christian organisation, even though some argue their work is informed by a Christian worldview.”

It is also irrelevant to include reference to Richard Prebble’s views of the Institute as it is an opinion, not fact. It is biased to include third party opinion. TheDilettante 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the article to conform to the NPOV policy. The paragraph with Richard Prebble's views was removed and small changes have been made to improve the accuracy and neutrality. TheDilettante 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes made to the article on 3rd April 2006 do not conform to the NPOV policy. Because it is not neutral the credibility of the article is undermined. Information that can not be cited or proven as fact should not be included. TheDilettante 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the last two changes to the article seem to be antagonistic towards the Institute, and focus excessively on opposing voices, including linking to spurious media mentions and no mainstream media. Equipoise 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing the external Critic link for its spuriousness and also the external Public Address link which should go under Bruce Logan’s Wikipedia article. TheDilettante 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the Critic link. It is not spurious, but is a topical piece profiling the Maxim Institute and highlighting its letter-to-the-editor broadcasts. Our article seems a bit too uncritical now, if anything, so I think removing this link would degrade our article.

I'm not sure about moving the Public Address interview, which covers the Maxim Institute's position on the Civil Unions bill. I think it fits in here better than in our Bruce Logan article, but I'm not convinced it helps this article much either. Perhaps it should just be deleted. -- Avenue 00:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Avenue and have removed the Bruce Logan link. TheDilettante 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been heaps of commentary on Maxim over the past few years. I'm keen to get a balance, but I wonder if, rather than link to the Critic article, which seems to focus more on attacking 'Steve Taylor' (who is this guy?) and developing conspiracy theories around Maxim, we just remove external links. Equipoise 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalising information

There's a lot of information on Evidence (which is now discontinued) and NZ votes (confined to the 2005 general election campaign). Perhaps it would be best to rationalise all these into a 'History' section? Equipoise 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced Commentary

I have included balancing commentary related to the second item about awards. At some point soon, I will link to the Scoop Maharey and NZEI articles that contained the observations about research quality. As it was, it looked far too celebratory, and only told one side of the story, thus violating NPOV requirements.

User: Calibanu 15:15, 07 May 2006

[edit] Supporting Citizen Participation

I notice Calibanu has qualified "citizen participation" with "social conservative" in the second paragraph, as well as adding a whole bunch of extra info. I fear the original intention of that sentence has been lost, and completely misunderstood by the likes of Calbanu and Liefting in their amendments.

We're not saying Maxim aren't social conservative in outlook, but the fact is the NZ Votes campaign was run as non-partisan as possible - at the New Plymouth one even Harry uynhoven commended Maxim on this. That particular paragraph pertained to this support and initiative which Maxim provided for democratic participation in general.

Calbanu's recent amendments require more thought and critique with regards to this aspect of Maxim's identity and work. A.J.Chesswas 03:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My edit was supposed to reflect their political lobbying in general rather that the nzvotes website. I was of the impression that nzvotes was quite non-partisan. It seems Nicky Hager has some doubts about its neutrality but I am now curious to read The Baubles of Office mentioned by the latest anon edit. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nzvotes.org contained text matching text in 2002 Challenge Weekly Christian Newspaper article

Maxim Institute's original General Policy section for the Green Party on the nzvotes.org site contained text matching a summary of the Green Party contained in an article published in Challenge Weekly Christian Newspaper on July 22, 2002. I have a copy of the emails from August 2005 between myself and Diana Piggott, nzvotes.org communications co-ordinator, on this issue. I may release the full emails closer to the next election. In the emails I challenged Maxim Institute's claim that they were running a "non-partisan" website, and asked them to change the Green's General Policy statement to be the four principles of The Green Charter. After I made two requests, they made the change in all the relevant locations on the nzvotes.org site.

Diana Piggott stated that "To date, all content including party principles and policy has literally been cut and pasted into the nzvotes.org site to ensure that no discrepancies occur". My response was: "Yet you choose which bits to cut and paste, where from, and which bits to ignore. That gives you too much power to represent parties in a manner that is favourable to your political ideologies." -- Bob, 1 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.82.242 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)