![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
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)
Removed "speciously", this is judgmental language (meaning misleading) that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.-- Markbenjamin ( talk) 09:02, 3 May 2009 (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)
Please comment. -- Karnesky 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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 threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]
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)The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Is it still appropriate to lead the article by classifying the IPA as a "free market" think tank? Their latest report on energy:
Maybe they appreciate free markets, but is being pro-free market their defining quality? 20WattSphere ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
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)
Removed "speciously", this is judgmental language (meaning misleading) that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.-- Markbenjamin ( talk) 09:02, 3 May 2009 (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)
Please comment. -- Karnesky 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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 threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]
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)The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
Is it still appropriate to lead the article by classifying the IPA as a "free market" think tank? Their latest report on energy:
Maybe they appreciate free markets, but is being pro-free market their defining quality? 20WattSphere ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)