Talk:Institute of Public Affairs

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV requiired

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Appears that either for or against 

message: Please comment. --Karnesky 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IPA should jump to IPA (disambiguation).    Tabletop (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: In 2003, the Federal Government paid $50,000 of taxpayers' money to the Institute of Public Affairs to review the accountability of NGOs. --Kenneth Cooke (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yintan (and your cohorts) Stop Undoing My Changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  many breaches of NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: If RSes describe the IPA as "right wing", then it is acceptable in the article. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Right Wing" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Think Tank Secrets ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position on passive smoking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What chance the truth? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skepticism, criticism, doubt, or denial? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113103332/http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/in-office.aspx to http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/in-office.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Research focus: climate science 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Free market?