Talk:Fraser Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian[edit]

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)[reply]

I found literally zero mentions of the word "libertarian" on any of the above links. From what I read about the Institute it does not advocate any particular form of government, but rather government's fiscal responsibility and economic freedom, which makes it neither conservative nor libertarian.Truther2012 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Institute[edit]

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) Agreed - looking through their health policy papers they are ALL written by economists. Only one author in the most recent is getting a PhD in Health Management Policy (which is, again, the economic arm of Public Health, not social).Jtimleck (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Who founded this thing?[edit]

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)[reply]

Socially Liberal?[edit]

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)]][reply]

Immigration Policy[edit]

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. [1]. There anti free trade approach to immigration should also be mentioned in the article. [[steven 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Is this NPOV?[edit]

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)[reply]



Oops, I just cut out the first paragraph mentioned above without looking at the talk. If anyone wants to put it back, I won't fight over it. Still, I think cutting it out was appropriate. The comment about greenpeace seems totally out of place. Just because a criticism is equally true for GP else doesn't make it any less applicable to the FI. Nevertheless the article is a bit overly critical of the FI, it would be good to have more info about it's accomplishments. Something more substantial than the weak/inappropriate rebuttal regarding "Economic Freedom of the World Report". Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 23:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "The Fraser Institute is an economically conservative Canadian think tank. Its mandate is to advocate for competitive markets to better provide for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. It is very critical of government spending, high taxes, and government deficits. While economically right-wing, it does not support social conservatism. It supports free trade, closer economic integration with the United States and privatization of government services.", why can't you just instead simply state that the Fraser Institute is a libertarian think thank. It explains it's position a lot better and in a simplisic way instead of this complexity. -Stabuh 15 July 2005

I have never seen any evidence that the Fraser Institute directly or, as the article states, indirectly supports social conservatism. In fact this article itself says that the Fraser Institute has come under attack from social conservatives for supporting the legalization of marijuana. I believe it is accurate to say that while economically conservative (rather than "right-wing" which is intended to be pejorative) the Fraser Institute does not support social conservatism. In fact it could be argued that the Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank. Libertarians are decidedly not social conservatives. 24.81.66.231 06:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Fraser is better described as "libertarian" rather than "conservative." It is often referred to as the Canadian version of America's CATO Institute, and a colleague of mine (a former Fraser fellow) refers to the Institute as "libertarian." 202.74.244.15 08:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much "peer reviewing" one receives is irrelevant. More peer-reviewing does not increase the legitimacy of research - instead the focus should be on WHO the peer-reviewers are. Furthermore, having edits pushed by reviewers (as the writer above attests) only means that if said reviewers work for said group then the final product will fits their own group's ideological bent. That's not independent peer-review. In most truly peer-reviewed publications (i.e. journals, APA, ASA, JAMA etc.) their peer-review boards are made up of people from multiple aspects and political spectrums that DON'T have control over the publishing content per se and are "independents" then - they voice criticisms that shape an articles content to the state of the art for that subject - rather than what some group, hermetically sealed in their thoughts, believes that state to be. Publish who the review board is and then the "peer-review" is, at least, transparent... and that's what most legit outfits do if they claim "peer review" - I don't see that here with the FI and that's what gets them into trouble.Jtimleck (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be scrupulous about not referring to teh Fraser Institue as "right wing," which I think is commendable. However, they refer to another "think tank"--the Rideau Institute--as "left wing." This should be removed to ensure an NPOV. 205.211.133.128 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banlist 207.102.5.141?[edit]

This IP pings to Vancouver, and if I had a little time I bet it would turn up to be a Fraser Institute IP address. That IP address is continuously reverting the article one that sounds more like a promotional piece, and I am quite happy with the article as it is. Should we perhaps consider blocking the IP from making further changes? (posted 21:49, 14 July 2005 from 130.232.29.155)

If this person was only inserting biased text that would at least be a starting point for discussion, but instead they seem fixed on inserting copyrighted material into the article so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter what POV the text shows. If this keeps going on then a ban would be appropriate. --PullUpYourSocks 19:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is some amusement in the idea of someone improving an article about the FI -- by stealing copyright material from the FI website. Sounds like a r-wing version of property is theft. :) Thanks for watchlisting the article and reverting, folks. Cheers, Madmagic 20:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Well, late to the party, but for the record, it's very easy to find out who ARIN thinks an ip address belongs to. For those of you on linux, bsd, or other unix systems, the 'whois' command provides a certain amount of enlightenment. Fade 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
artoo ~ # whois 207.102.5.141

OrgName:    TELUS Communications Inc.
OrgID:      TACE
Address:    #2600 4720 Kingsway Avenue
City:       Burnaby
StateProv:  BC
PostalCode: V5N-4N2
Country:    CA

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.telus.net:4321

NetRange:   207.102.0.0 - 207.102.255.255
CIDR:       207.102.0.0/16
NetName:    TAC-BLK3
NetHandle:  NET-207-102-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Allocation
NameServer: NANO.BC.TAC.NET
NameServer: PICO.BC.TAC.NET
Comment:    Please direct spam and abuse complaints to abuse@telus.com
Comment:
RegDate:    2000-01-12
Updated:    2003-06-30

(... snip)

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2005-12-10 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.


Found a referral to rwhois.telus.net:4321.

%rwhois V-1.5:003ab7:00 rwhois.telus.net (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.7.3)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:231.207.102.0.0/16
network:Auth-Area:207.102.0.0/16
network:Network-Name:FRASER INSTITUTE THE - DLink Modme
network:IP-Network:207.102.5.128/27
network:Org-Name:FRASER INSTITUTE THE-VANCBC07
network:Street-Address:1770 Burrard St
network:City:Vancouver
network:State-Province:BC
network:Country-Code:CA
network:Postal-Code:V6J 3G7
network:Updated:2005-04-07 (17:34:42)
network:Created:2004-07-16 (22:45:31)
network:Admin-Contact:hostmaster@telus.com
network:Abuse-Contact:abuse@telus.com (1-604-444-5791)
network:Tech-Contact:swip@swip.ca.telus.com


Listen up dude. The bias is in the history of the FI. What kind of history is that? Some mention about Walter Block then a paragraph rant on big tobacco. This is a really feeble section and I have tried repreatedly to do something with it but some fanatico obsessed with tobacco keeps ripping me up and reverting this to his pet peeve. Dude, go write about tobacco in the right forum. This is about the history of the FI. It spans 35 years. Stop being a vandalistic dikwad. Fanfardon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfardon (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

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)[reply]

Here you go: seems pretty clear what Peer review process they follow. I think we should remove the para which questions this now: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/peerreview/ 208.181.174.207 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The academic nature of The Fraser Forum is, at the very best, dubious. University research library databases (at least, the one at Wilfrid Laurier University classify The Fraser Forum as a "magazine" as opposed to a "scholarly journal". Additionally, the Forum's articles have been criticised for their obvious bias and poor methodology in other academic journals and even in UN reports. Having subscribed to the Forum in the past, I would guess that their "peer review" largely consists of checks for ideological consistency with the organisation and gross factual inaccuracies. My evidence is that they preface articles critical of the Institute's ideology with an editorial note that the article is being included for the purposes of "presenting both sides" of the argument. I'm not aware of any legitimate academic journal that has these editorial prefaces. BordenRhodes (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactionary?[edit]

The word "reactionary" is used 3 times in the first 4 sentences to describe the Fraser Institute. Being unfamiliar with the term, I click on reactionary, and it is described by Wikipedia as a pejorative term, which in turn is described as "implies contempt or disapproval". Are we saying that Wikipedia has contempt for or disapproves of the Fraser Institute, because it is not our role to pass judgement on it. Deet 09:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you'd checked the history, you'd have found that "reactionary" was added earlier today by an IP, presumably as vandalism. I've reverted. Semperf 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you might be interested to know, this article was cited in the British House of Lords today. The version of the article referred to described the institute as 'reactionary'—wording which was seized upon by a government minister to discredit a member of the opposition party who is involved with the Institute—one Lord Lawson. A reminder, perhaps, that what we do here isn't wholly unnoticed.
See [2], column 709.
Xdamrtalk 00:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Quite a coincidence that he quoted the article when it was in a brief state of what Semperf called vandalism. Deet 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why smart people don't cite wikipedia. Use it, sure. Cite it? No. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.221.26 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Quite frankly, no-one ought to be citing a generalist publication like an encyclopaedia as a source - but that is another issue. --Xdamrtalk 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraser Institute

1770 Burrard St., 4th Fl.

Vancouver, BC V6J 3G7

Canada

Phone (604) 604-688-0221 Toll Free 800-665-3558 Fax (604) 604-688-8539 Email info@fraserinstitute.ca URL http://www.fraserinstitute.ca Headquarters Yes Organization Type Charitable Organizations Associations Subjects Subject Headings: Public Policy; Economics; Social Policy Category: Business & Finance Founding Date 1974 Language English Number of Employees Total: 41 Jurisdiction National Library information Library: Size Medium Officers Dr. Michael A. Walker, Executive Director Kristin McCahon, Director Suzanne Walters, Director Michael Hopkins, Director Sherry Stein, Director

Profile To redirect public attention to the role competitive markets play in the economic well-being of all Canadians Affiliated With organizations in 57 countries Budget Greater than $5 Million Funding sources Donations; sale of publications; grants from foundations Members type 1,000-4,999 Membership Fees $25-99 Fraser Friend; $100-349 Research Circle; $350-999 Scholars Number of Members 3,500 supporters/donors Publications Critical Issues Bulletins. Fraser Folio. Fraser Forum. ISSN 0827-7893. m. Type of publication: Magazine. Price: $3,95 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.28 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative libertarian?[edit]

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)[reply]

Problematic edit[edit]

This reference added by Emarsee (talk · contribs) does not explicitly mention Fraser Institute is conservative, rather it has a summary of a debate. But the problematic and POV-pushing edit by Emarsee (talk · contribs) [3] 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)[reply]

POV unobjective[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT by adding stuff - verified using reliable sources of course. Rd232 talk 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of edits[edit]

POV unobjective, described above, must be addressed. Article also poorly organized.

I work in Communications at the Fraser Institute and plan to edit this fairly. Logogogue (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're working for the Fraser Institute, you have conflict of interest with this article.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it best to declare my conflict of interest, to establish a good rapport with those who are keeping tabs on my edits. That said, the article is poorly organized, but my objective is not to whitewash it; I'll work within the editorial guidelines to restructure it appropriately and add more current figures and sources, where applicable. Logogogue (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has obvious NPOV issues. It also requires new and updated information, as well as specific improvements in the organization of existing content.
Proposals for editing
Top: Can be condensed considerably. First sentence to be repaired re: no citation. Inception, research initiatives, and staff to be moved to apporpriate sections elsewhere.
History: Tobacco discussion to be moved to "Controversy."
Funding: Small sample of funding singled out; source http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Fraser_Institute/funders is NPOV-pushing, "dedicated to analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation" (see http://mediamattersaction.org/p/about_us/). Suggest removing. Also update with most current CRA figures.
Governance: Update with new trustees.
Political stance: Too convoluted. Suggest condensing.
High-profile figures: "The Institute mantains that it has an apolitical stance; however, in recent years..." is NPOV-pushing, no citation. Suggest removing.
Positions: Lacks content. Suggest deleting, moving mention of McKitrick to "High-profile figures."
Publications: List is out of date and very incomplete. Suggest replacing with new "Research" section describing prominent studies and ongoing research initiatives.
Education Programs: Add new section briefly detailing the Fraser Institute's programs for students, teachers, and journalists. Logogogue (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to revert or change any of the edits you've made so far (with the exception of the massive link farm at the end and other MOS issues), but it seems that this version isn't much of an improvement over the last edits. For starters, the introduction includes the mission statement of Fraser Institute and Wikipedia does not generally list out a mission statement of an organization.
  • We do not require a list of the entire board of the Fraser Institute. See WP:NOTDIR
  • I'm well aware that you work for the Institute, but we do not accept text copied from another website, even if you work for the organization. The material on the Fraser Institute's website is copyrighted, and is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses Wikipedia uses. For example with the "Global Petroleum Survey", it's pretty much copypasta from http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17762. Feel free to rewrite it to avoid the copyright issues.
  • Some of the main stances (besides free trade/economic freedom) that the Fraser Institute advocates should be listed on the article
  • You've mentioned that that the political stance section is too convoluted, and now there is an undue weight on the research section. It should either be condensed, or other sections should be given their due weight.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fraser Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Network[edit]

Due to edits by T noakes the lead now has a sentence It is a member of the Atlas Network of libertarian policy lobbyists. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fraser_Institute&oldid=1207291808"