Talk:Fraser Institute

message: Statement sourced from mainstream media and other sources, including media establishments cited in this article:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=fb622996-c92f-4f94-8cfa-6601e2b3dda6&k=10588
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/06/16/taxfreedomday.html
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13957&Itemid=86
http://www.ontariohomeschool.org/fraserstudysummaries.html
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=8c492527-8a82-40b2-9d51-30bb25a92802
Mft1 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian

message: The second sentence in the introduction states: "Though it (the Fraser Institute) contains some socially conservative and neo-conservative elements, it is mostly libertarian." What is the source/citation for this statement? Most of the Institute's research focusses on economics, not social policy. I suggest that statement should be removed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.60.241 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraser Institute

message: The article is not consistant about who founded the institute. In the introduction is says "It was founded in 1974 by Michael Walker", but under controversy it says "It was founded by T.Patrick Boyle". Was it co-founded, or is this information maybe wrong? FoiledAgain 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who founded this thing?

message: I spent several hours this evening reviewing the Fraser Institute's site and find it difficult to understand how they are 'socially liberal'. I suggest that phrase be removed.[[steven 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socially Liberal?

message: The Fraser Institute, or at least the research and position papers published by its researchers, have a socially conservative and anti Liberterian take on immigration. . There anti free trade approach to immigration should also be mentioned in the article. [[steven 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration Policy

message: Rather than attempt to edit this paragraph of the article on the Fraser Institute in-place and perhaps generate edit warz, I've copied it here for discussion first:
Others point out that some of their research, like the Economic Freedom of the World Report, have been used in many papers that have been peer-reviewed. [1] (http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html) And that organizations like Greenpeace also do both research often not peer-reviewed and actively try promote their findings and agenda.
This paragraph seems to be in response to the preceding para in the article:
Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have noted the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. The accuracy and reliability of the information they produce is therefore often questionable. The Institute also dedicates considerable energy and funding to actively promote their findings and their agenda to broadcast and print media, a practice not followed by most research foundations or in the research work of university departments.
I question the two main points of the followup para (the first para I quoted, above.)
First, Greenpeace is not an Institute or think tank, nor does it pretend to be either. Greenpeace is an advocacy organization. To compare or contrast Greenpeace with the Fraser Institute seems therefore to be an apples-oranges comparison.
Second, when you're not an organization which peer-reviews your data & conclusions, the simple fact that other organizations (which do claim to do peer-review) have used your data & conclusions -- only means somebody is being sloppy.
I don't want to remove comments in support of the FI and be charged as reducing NPOV. However, the first para cited is not good reasoning, and to me : seems to be false and misleading support.
Comments welcome and invited. Cheers, Madmagic 19:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
I think that both of those counterpoints are basically fair to make.  Because academic papers are peer-reviewed before they are published, research from the Fraser Institute published in a peer-reviewed journal is also peer-reviewed.  Because the Fraser Institute does not peer review all its publications, like most so-called "non-partisan" think tanks including the CD Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, it makes sure to advertise the fact that its articles that are published in academic journals have been peer-reviewed.  I think that most think tanks that advertise themselves as independent and non-partisan are essentially advocacy groups in reality.  The Fraser Institute is allegedly influenced by business donations whereas the CCPA takes donations from the NDP.  The Council of Canadians is undoubtedly strongly left-leaning despite their self-description.  If the two counterpoints seem NPOV to you, they may require modification, but I think the basic reasoning behind them is sound and should be maintained.
As one who has published extensively with the Institute I can assure you I went through more hassle than in most peer reviewed journals in which I have published. In two books I wrote the Institute forced me to address the comments of 11 reviewers. Enven when publishing for Edward Elgar or Springer Verlag or Cambridge University Press I have never been subject to such review. As to the Institue bowing to business interests in the DISTANT past I can say that this is nonsense. The Institute lost substantial contributions for example from Nortel for publishing views counter to the notion that government should subsidize researcha and development by big business. As to the influence of business on the Institute recently, this is more difficult to ascertain Most troubling is the Institute's embrace of former, but still active politicians such as Preston Manning and Michael Harris. While both have interesting things to say it is hard to admit them to Senior Fellow status and still maintian the Institute to be impartial. Further tarnishing the Institute's previously enviable record of impartiality is Czasba Hajdu's elevation to Senior Fellow status. Hajdu is a manufacturer of paprika with next to no academic credibility. It seems that the Institute is selling "seats" on its academic board to cash in on an academic credibility earned over the last 25 years. In cashing so in, the Institute is degrading its reputation.
: I don't know who you are, but the experiences you claim to have had with the Instutute are irrelevant. See WP:No original research.  I agree with MadMagic.  I also don't see the relevance of the 'Google Scholar Search', or the 'less than five percent of their budget etc...' - So what? Dlabtot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this NPOV?

message: I've found several examples of Fraser Institute publications referring explicitly to their own peer review process.  While it would appear that the Institute has no published policy regarding peer review (there's no broad statement that says "All of our studies undergo peer review), it seems that at least some of them do.  I've found 5 such examples:
* Challenges in Senate Reform – Acknowledgement is on last page of the study
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=691
* Generic Drugopoly – Acknowledgement is on the last page of the study
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=685
* Marijuana Growth in British Columbia – Footnote comment is on page 5 of the study
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=669
* How Good is Canadian Health Care? 2005 Report – Acknowledgement is on page 2 of the study.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=782
* Productivity, Prosperity, and Business Taxes – Acknowledgement is on the last page of the study
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=820
I've edited the article to be more consistent with this evidence. --Llewdor 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The first sentence uses the term, 'conservative libertarian'.  They are two different things and overlap in the sense of advocating small government.  Although in some countries (notably) the US, conservative is losing that connotation with the advent of big government conservatives.
Perhaps removing the 'conservative' and leaving 'libertarian' would be more accurate.
:"conservative and libertarian" was recently replaced with "free market", making for a repetitious opening sentence. For most of the article's history I think it's been described as just "libertarian", so perhaps that's the way to go. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative libertarian? 

message: This reference added by  does not explicitly mention Fraser Institute is conservative, rather it has a summary of a debate. But the problematic and POV-pushing edit by   labeled the institute as conservative using this source. I will properly reword it to avoid the misrepresentation of source and since different labels are used for Fraser by different media, these should be attributed properly. --Defender of torch (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic edit 

message: The article is extremely biased. 
It pays undue attention to tobacco policy throughout, ignoring dozens of additional areas into which the Institute has done research, and offering only brief mentions for a selection of others. 
Tone and content are generally unfavorable towards the Fraser Institute, as article only cites instances where the Institute has been criticized, never instances where Institute researchers have called into question research published by external sources or where Institute policy recommendations have been adopted by governments.
--209.52.60.241 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT by adding stuff - verified using reliable sources of course. Rd232 talk 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV unobjective 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fraser Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091230152050/http://www.fraserinstitute.org:80/aboutus/whoweare/mission.htm to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whoweare/mission.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225035619/http://www.fraserinstitute.org:80/aboutus/whoweare/ to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whoweare/
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0920/005.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Fraser Institute. 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/20160304030354/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=8c492527-8a82-40b2-9d51-30bb25a92802 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/city/story.html?id=8c492527-8a82-40b2-9d51-30bb25a92802
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810201702/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2010.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812113153/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2010.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/waiting-your-turn-2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309200500/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=18045 to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=18045
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812113017/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/global-petroleum-survey-2011.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/global-petroleum-survey-2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310080541/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/canadian-provincial-investment-climate-2010.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/canadian-provincial-investment-climate-2010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724082203/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/report-cards/school-performance/overview.aspx to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/report-cards/school-performance/overview.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723043806/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/magazines.aspx to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/magazines.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807055742/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=15736 to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=15736
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728024431/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education-programs/overview.aspx to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education-programs/overview.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811022806/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/About_Us/Who_We_Are/2010-annual-report.pdf to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/About_Us/Who_We_Are/2010-annual-report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727202538/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-directors.aspx to http://www.fraserinstitute.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-directors.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) 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fraser Institute. 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/20160313063050/http://fraseramerica.org/files/pdfs/about_us/30th_retrospective.pdf to http://www.fraseramerica.org/files/PDFs/About_Us/30th_Retrospective.pdf
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) 22:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Due to edits by T noakes the lead now has a sentence  citing atlasnetwork.org in 2015. My concern is: will anyone care? I pretend no expertise in networking, but if it's common for this kind of organization to declare that many other organizations are "partners", with no evident effect, I worry the claim is trivial. What do others think? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems of these libertarian think tanks is that they deliberately obfuscate their relationships with other like-minded organizations. This also obscures the relationships between personnel. As an example, the Fraser Institute shares personnel with several other Canadian organizations, all equally members of the Atlas Network, but they never disclose this. So in a given week the same talking point may be repeated by several different organizations who are all trying to minimize the connexions they have between one other. This in turn can given the impression of a) academic rigour, b) legitimacy, and/or c) consensus, when none exist. It should also be made clear that the FI is a libertarian/free-market charity with no academic affiliations, and that, as a member of the Atlas Network, it has received funding from the Koch Brothers. Given their influence in Canadian politics, these relationships are vitally important and often under/un-stated. This edit serves the public interest. T noakes (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas Network