Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs/Archives/2018

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

POV

Much of this article - in all sections - is copied verbatim form the IEA's own website, making some parts quite breathtakingly POV. To me, with no specialist knowledge on the topic, this casts doubt on the whole article, the tone of which appears heavily in favour of the organisation. Some examples:

"The IEA achieves its mission by..."
"On the whole, society's problems and challenges are best dealt with by..."
"...government action...should be kept to a minimum"
"The great economist..."
"IEA authors paved the way for the conquering of inflation, the reform of trade unions and the privatisation of the commanding heights of the economy"

Mutt Lunker 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your point, but think you are being over sensitive. Agree that it could be tweaked to be more neutral, but if you read the points you make in context to the rest of the text then it’s not overtly partisan.

Tweak away. Mutt Lunker 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this for starters?

Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was founded in the 1950s by Anthony Fisher out of a fortune made from intensively farmed broiler chickens (Buxted Chickens). An article about this London-based 'think tank' in The Sunday Times states, 'The oldest and biggest daddy of them all, the Institute of Economic Affairs, exists to propagate the ideas of free markets and privatisation. It has been going for nearly 50 years, and advises governments all over the world on ways to denationalise and bring in market systems.' http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Antony_Fisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Your text and the Source Watch link don't match though. The text appears to come from GM Watch[1] instead. Both could be added to the External Links section of the article but am not sure that the sites themselves would be regarded as notable or reliable in themselves, although the references they cite ought to be if you can track them down. Mutt Lunker 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


To follow the IEA's website in explaining what its mission and standpoint are seems eminently sensibe. If you want to add material about critics of the IEA maintain that seems fine. But this article explains rather than adopts the IEA's POV, which is clearly attributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.45.250 (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Preceding comment (14:56 on 18 July 2008) was by Qlangley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlangley (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

namespam

I have removed the lists of staff, of the academic advisory board, etc. This is not considered encyclopedic content. The place for this is on the institute website, which is present as an appropriate external link. Nprmally we list the head, and past heads, but not others. DGG (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Funding

This page tells us lots about who doesn't fund the IEA and nothing about who does. In fact, this page really tells us nothing useful about the organisation at all. Can someone who doesn't work for them come up with anything?155.198.54.172 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if George asked them for a list of funding sources and they refused, it's irrelevant to the rest of the content. It should be removed as it's simply a promotional link for George and provides no illumination of the subject of the article. Digitalblister (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it shows that the IEA wants to keep its sources of funding secret. 92.20.107.169 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Major POV issues in this section. For example, criticism by a think tank was changed to [a think tank] "funded by the left-wing billionaire George Soros, suggested the IEA was one of the three most discreet think tanks in the UK". The link cited as evidence actually said it was one of the three "least transparent" think tanks - it was even in the headline. The terms used are clearly very different in tone. Donations from anonymous trusts were changed to list all other beneficiaries - which again is highly unusual in wiki, while some criticism was prefaced with "According to the Guardian" and "According to left-wing journalist George Monbiot, it may have received...". Overall it looks to be a POV issue. Wiki exists to accurately report - not to editorialise in ways not reflected by the cited references.Marty jar (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
George Soros is not a neutral arbiter. Neither is George Monbiot. They are both left-wing activists and opposed to the center-right ideals of an organization like the IEA. Their criticisms are not neutral; they have an agenda, which is neither encyclopedic nor neutral. Thus it is encyclopedic and neutral to contextualize their writings/"revelations," at the very least. Or remove them entirely as undue. Wikipedia is not the place for left-wing activism.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The funding section changes have now been reverted twice, despite a direct request to explain the changes on the talk board. Please can the changes be explained or justified here, so that the editors collectively can judge their appropriateness, in line with wiki rules. Thanks. Marty jar (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Read above and please be more patient in future.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting on the talk page, but we need to go through the actual amendments made to the funding section. Firstly, it's not usual wiki practice to cite a link using the term "least transparent" and to describe it as saying "most discreet", so I think that should be changed. Secondly it's not usual practice when saying an organisation has received money from a source, to list all other recipients to whom that source donated. That the IEA has been funded by tobacco companies since inception seems to be rather an important issue, given that in the UK, tobacco issues make up a large chunk of it's campaigning, so I think the position that section was in before your edits seems appropriate. I feel that the issue around Roger Scruton/conflicts of interest fits well into this section, but should be described more briefly, so that point should be restored, potentially in a shorter form. The prefacing of criticism with the source, and your perception of their political views seems like something which wiki shouldn't get into - it should probably say "Transparify - an organisation which monitors think tanks" rather than "Transparify, a Georgia-based organization funded by the left-wing billionaire George Soros". Similarly, the same is true of other sources - a compromise may be to say that "The Guardian reported", rather than "According to The Guardian", for example, given that the veracity of the claims doesn't appear to be disputed.
Those are the most prominent issues - please feel free to let me know any thoughts below.Marty jar (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It sounds like you just want your edits to be restored, even though they are too POV; that is not a compromise. The phrases "least transparent" and "most discreet" mean exactly the same thing, but it is a way to avoid copyright issues. It also seems more neutral, as organizations like the IEA are not obligated by law to disclose their donors; so they can be discreet about it if they want to. Roger Scruton is irrelevant to this article, which is about the IEA, not Scruton. The contextualization of Transparify is critical to understand who is funding these biased/activist "revelations": they are funded by a left-wing activist donor! Similarly, The Guardian is a left-wing newspaper and they have a specifically left-wing agenda. I would add that tobacco use is completely legal in the UK, so the whole section seems pointless. Wikipedia is neither the place for left-wing activism nor a platform against the use of a legal product like tobacco. If there is no consensus, I suggest the "funding" section gets removed entirely from this article because it seems UNDUE. Would you agree to remove the section?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As you can imagine - no, I don't agree that the whole section should be deleted. Editors over the past 2 years seem to have been fine with it, so major changes should really be discussed and agreed. To address the issues, if a source describes a group as being "least transparent" in relation to funding, I can reassure you that wiki can say "least transparent" without breaching copyright or having any legal issue, so the justification for that change suggests it to be unnecessary. The change to "most discreet" is a considerable change in tone, and an inaccurate representation of the source. There's been no suggestion at any point that tobacco's illegal - the reason tobacco company funding was in there is due to perceived conflict of interest - not funding from illegal sources. Roger Scruton was a senior representative of the IEA when he had a conflict of interest of the same kind the IEA is accused of (tobacco companies) and his publishing was often through the IEA, hence it's inclusion. The prefacing of sources with your personal perception of their politics isn't in keeping with wiki guidelines - particularly in ways which could be perceived by some readers to be derogatory. Could a poster go around prefacing sources with "the far-right Fox News" and the "liberal elitist New York Times"? Regardless of whether you consider 'Transparify' to be "biased", there's no reason their claims can't be carried on wiki for the reader to make their own decision. Please let me know your disagreement with the version before your amendments, and your proposed amendments, and hopefully we can move this forward. ThanksMarty jar (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources in that section are not neutral, thus they are undue. The only way that section can be kept is with contextualization, the way it is now. If you change it again, it will be POV and should get removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that answers my points. Before escalating, would you mind explaining your view of the changes made, in relation to the points being discussed? Thanks. Marty jar (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, please read above. Btw, it is also undue because there is no indication that most of their funding comes from those donors, as George Soros would like us to believe apparently. Don't they sell books, etc? Hard to know as they are very discreet about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy Page

I think this page is very, very sloppy and I'll be cleaning it up over the next few days. If great swathes of text are to copied and pasted from the institute's own website they should be clearly citated and and put in quotation marks.

Are the lists of staff and fellows really necessary? I don't think so.--TamsinSpencer (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should the funding section be presented?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RFC was not closed, the participants worked it out. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

An amendment recently made to the funding section of this page about a think tank is here and relevant discussion of the changes is here.

Which version is preferable - could the section be improved?

  • Comment - Neither version is great. The section should be boiled down to what we know. A paragraph on the think tank's stated funding policy, followed a paragraph of notable criticism seems balanced.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. We don't know much, aside from the stated policy. I don't think they have confirmed or denied anything, have they? We also don't know what other funding they may get from books, events, etc., or even from other donors, proportionally. It looks like the section may have to be removed entirely.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Where prominent criticism of an organisation's funding policies has been levied, it's within the scope of an encyclopedia to mention that, and the approach of mentioning that after the IEAs own stated policy is the correct one. "Not knowing much" about the donors is in fact consistent with the sourced third party claim that IEA lacks transparency. This should not be rephrased to represent a different POV such as "most discreet" (or indeed "most secretive"). The Scruton Big Tobacco links are outdated and tenuous, but observations that tobacco firms have made substantial donations to the institute itself probably aren't given the IEA's entrenched position in lobbying against any and all anti-tobacco policies, and the Guardian criticism. Arguably there should be more weight given to significant and original contributions of IEA to policy debates than its funding, but that's a case for improving other sections rather than removing the funding section. To that effect, I'm not sure why the passage on the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, well documented on the IEA website, was removed? Dtellett (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Dtellett: Why do you think the criticism is "prominent"? I think it's biased and activist, which seems very inappropriate in an encyclopedia. There is also undue weight not only with regards to the rest of the article, but also with regards to funding (I doubt what The Guardian has zeroed in on is their main source of funding, but it is salacious/tabloid fodder).Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's biased and activist, but so are think tanks. In all seriousness, it's pretty noteworthy for a major national newspaper to run multiple articles on the funding of a particular think tank, and the claims are also widely repeated on less WP:notable sources and their factual status is not in dispute. If there were either publicly-available statistics about the relative (in)significance of tobacco funds or a clear IEA position on relationships between donors and research-emphasis it would be appropriate to include that for context but there aren't and they don't. At the moment it is your own personal view that tobacco funding is unlikely to be significant to the IAE that is unsupported conjecture Dtellett (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If we don't know, it's not encyclopedic. It becomes gossip (which is all the Guardian articles are). Thus it should be removed from this article. The only way it could remain in the article is by contextualizing the sources, as is the case now. If there is no consensus on this, I contend that the section should be removed. This article should not be an attack page. Leave that to the Guardian!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but "if other editors don't agree with the way I've watered down a claim we delete it altogether" is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The article should provide informative coverage of the nature of the organization, and for a political lobbying organization who funds their activity falls within that scope, as does fact-based mainstream suggestions there may be potential conflicts of interest, and any statements to the contrary made by the IEA or notable supporters Dtellett (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Where are "fact-based mainstream suggestions there may be potential conflicts of interest"? As you agreed above, the Guardian and George Soros are biased and activist sources. By the way, the research published by a think tank like the IEA is written by scholars independently and then peer-reviewed (read the article); it is non sequitur to assume that donations lead to specific results; that's not how research works. I believe you misunderstand what an encyclopedia is; it is neither investigative journalism nor gossip ("potential").Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's neither "investigative journalism" nor "gossip" to point out that the IEA is known to receive non-trivial amounts funding from the tobacco industry, which can be established as easily from the British American Tobacco website as from the Guardian. Just indeed as it is neither investigative journalism nor gossip (nor an "attack article") for an article on a pro-EU think tanks to point out that it is funded by the EU (IEA commentary could even be a source for that...) or to point out prominent accusations of funding conflicts or unethical behaviour on a particular politicians' website. The funding of the IEA particularly relevant since the IEA has written a monograph objecting to other organizations accepting funds from government-linked bodies (a view which I happen to sympathise with). I'm inclined to add a sourced statement along the lines of "the IEA has campaigned against government funding for politically active think tanks, NGOs or pressure groups" to the first paragraph, assuming there would be no objections to that.
The IEA's monographs are peer reviewed but its press releases on issues like opposing plain tobacco certainly aren't (point taken about adding in a reference to the IEA's own statement that it does "not accept tied research" though)
Love them or loathe them, the Guardian in general and Monbiot individually are also WP-notable commentators whose opinions can be relevant, and the Soros-funded Transparify study was at face value pretty even-handed in criticising think tanks across the political spectrum for lack of transparency. It seems a little circular to argue that a study on think-tank funding can't be relevant because of who funded the think-tank that did the study... Dtellett (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is why I did not remove the section, but contextualized the sources. But without context, it will be biased and thus not encyclopedic at all, and should be removed (on top of its undue weight). I disagree with you that Soros or the Guardians are "even-handed", and you seem to be contradicting yourself as you said earlier that they were "biased and activist". Yes, government funding usually comes with more strings attached than private funding, although some might disagree; that's a moot point.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Soros has never been a citation here: a think-tank called Transparify which is funded by a Soros-funded foundation is the citation. They've criticised funding of both left and right wing think tanks for 'lack of transparency' and the only evidence of partisanship you've raised is who ultimately pays their bills. I'm not the one making the claim that funders are not important context for think tanks... On a more constructive note, I've added in the IEA position on government funding since it seems to be both relevant and uncontroversialDtellett (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm very wary of this getting bogged down in more personal, unproductive edit disputes, so it's probably best if I wrap up a few points, and then we address any content issues point by point. Apologies for the length, but quite a lot has been discussed.
Firstly there appears to be a consensus on keeping the section. A quick check shows it's been on the page for at least 5 years, and essentially unchanged in 2 until it was rewritten, during which time there were a large number of editors involved. Secondly on prefacing sources, I don't think there's consensus on preceding sources with an editor's perception of their politics or financial status. For example, nobody's suggesting going through the article prefacing IEA with "the right-wing, pro-tobacco industry IEA". As with any other description, it may be accurate (depending on your POV), but it's not within wiki norms to do this - particularly with respected sources - unless there are very unusual circumstances. It's for the reader to draw their own conclusions. As I think was established earlier, the source which describes the IEA of one of the 3 "least transparent" think tanks should be described in that way - not "most discreet". The only reason given for the change was potential breach of copyright, and I think it's clear that's not an issue. In terms of sources, the tobacco funding has a lot more links to be added (such as BAT confirmation of levels of funding; the leaked industry memos etc.) which should strengthen this section. The issue around Roger Scruton's conflict of interest while publishing as part of the IEA seems relevant, but is currently 6 lines and could be about 2-3, and the Donor's Trust donations shouldn't be prefaced with all other sources to whom this trust donated - again on the basis of wiki norms and relevance; much as all other recipients of tobacco companies aren't included. Feel free to let me know any thoughts on this, and we can draw up a new version in the coming days.Marty jar (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I still believe we need to contextualize the very biased sources, or remove them and thus also remove the (biased) information buttressed by them. So there is no consensus about removing the section entirely. By the way, adding so-called "leaked memos" would be original research; it may also be illegal if they were leaked. Wikipedia is not the place for activist investigate journalism; it's a neutral encyclopedia. Moreover, a think tank the IEA is not "right-wing"; it promotes the free market. They're not the same things.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that you may still believe the entire section should be deleted and have borne that in mind, but a consensus doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous, so I'm afraid that decision appears to be straightforward for the reasons described above - the opinions of editors over several years. I've also pointed out above why the removal or prefacing of sources you disagree with politically is outside of wiki norms, and inappropriate editorialising. In relation to leaked memos - it's a fair point regarding original research. I'll ensure that citations are for an academic paper relating to the topic, and publications of other organisations. Were there any other points relating to other issues- for example, are you happy for the source saying "least transparent" no longer to be described as saying "most discreet", and the reinstatement of the version which didn't list all sources to whom funders of the IEA had also donated? Marty jar (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I am in favor of keeping the section, and broadly agree with Marty jar, including Donor's Trust ...donations shouldn't be prefaced with all other sources to whom this trust donated. I'm not opposed to putting sources in context. Additionally, the article and its section should attempt to be fairly weighted. Both the think tank and those critical of its funding are biased. It is not up us to decide the degree to which they are biased. Regarding to the Monbiot article, to my mind it states that the IEA did receive funding, not that it may. However, its not clear if it was Donors' Trust or the Donors' Capital Fund.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We can't rely on GHOSTS: "opinions of editors over several years." I would welcome the views of current editors about this, however. Let's wait and see what they think. My point is that if we don't contextualize the sources, it will be POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Tbh that's not how wiki works - the collective opinions of editors aren't dismissed if they haven't edited a page in the past week. I'm afraid that you appear to be the only poster who's argued the entire section should be deleted - and indeed during your recent rewrite I assume didn't hold that opinion. Regardless, I'm glad there apppears to be progress on topics other than the the prefacing of sources. We can get on and amend the section, and continue to appraise the phrases you're keen on ("Transparify, a Georgia-based organization funded by the left-wing billionaire George Soros"; "According to left-wing journalist George Monbiot"). Personally, as pointed out above, I'd argue that if Transparify were prefaced in this way, some posters could argue that all mentions of the IEA could be prefaced by "right-wing tobacco-industry funded IEA" everywhere it's mentioned. It doesn't appear to be balanced or workable. On the latter example, all sources could be prefaced with 'left-wing' or 'right-wing', based on the personal view of individual editors, and there's a very strong risk of editorialising and POV issues. Marty jar (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay - an amended version is on the board; there are a couple more sources on funding to boil it down to more factual information, and the section on Roger Scruton's publishing at the IEA has been shortened. Going through the sources, there was more solid information available than was previously used, it can be phrased less washily. Please have a look, and we'll discuss any thoughts. One point in particular is that it currently says "The IEA was accused of receiving $215,000...". Personally I think the source here suggests that it can be phrased "The IEA received...", but thought I'd check what others think. Marty jar (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Marty jar: Extremely inappropriate to be bold when there is no consensus and we are trying to hear from other editors. I am tempted to be bold and remove the section entirely as well, since you feel you can be bold without consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to list all of the issues and discuss them maturely - frankly the threat to delete the section in retribution seems entirely inappropriate, so I'd ask you to stick to points regarding the article.
As discussed at length, we've gone through the points in turn; the outstanding one you mentioned in your last post was your recent change to "contextualise" sources. However I notice that you've also changed one sentence, and deleted another, neither of which you'd previously express an issue with. You've suggested that the problem with the latter was that the name of the critic wasn't in the article - I'm happy to add the name of the critic. On the former, it seems important to include the previous version to explain what the criticism was, rather than just implying that there had been criticism, so I'd like to amend this to it's previous version. On Transparify I still disagree with your recent addition here tbh, and have extensively explained my position above. To try to resolve this, can you explain from your perspective why you feel there isn't an equivalence between, for example, adding "tobacco industry funded" before every mention of the IEA, or "right-wing founder, Mr X", and your change of "Transparify" to include the words "which is funded by left-wing activist billionaire George Soros?Marty jar (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Because if you remove that, we don't know what Transparify is. It may be better to agree to disagree, which is part of the Wikipedia process. It's not about getting your own way about everything you want. As I explained before, the IEA is not right-wing and probably does not receive much from tobacco companies proportionally, but we don't know, as they respect donor discretion. That section is all gossip IMO. But we could leave it as it is until more editors share their views (which is really what I'd like to see). We don't have to solve this today.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've modified the funding section to better reflect the Financial Times source article. Transparify is funded by Open Society Foundations, rather than Soros directly. I've added a sentence stating IEA's response to the report, which seems more balanced. Regarding contextualizing Soros, do we have a source that states he is left wing. His wikipedia article doesn't state that once, although it mentions funding of progressive liberal organizations. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to say I'm pleased that while some of us have haggled at length over minutiae, somebody's made extensive, balanced, and well referenced changes - nicely done sir! Although there are differences to how I would have phrased things, it all seems an awful lot better in my personal view. Marty jar (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Do the participants believe the RFC needs closed?

The RFC appears to have come to a conclusion on edits that have stayed over a month. It is listed on WP:ANRFC as needing closing, but as a closer, Im not sure that this is needed. What is the opinion of the participants? Im pinging everyone involved Marty jar Jonpatterns Zigzig20s Dtellett. AlbinoFerret 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think the RfC has been suitably addressed and can be closed.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I agree it can be closed Dtellett (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, because close is a word with specific meaning when dealing with RFC's Jonpatterns and Dtellett by your comments, are you suggesting that the RFC be formally closed, or just archived? AlbinoFerret 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not being specific, the RfC in my opinion can be archived.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than wait, I will just archive it, and mark the entry on WP:ANRFC as "not done, participants worked it out". If any of participants want it formally closed please leave me a message on my talk page and I will do it. AlbinoFerret 20:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neoliberal and Free-market characterizations

Per the prevalence of characterization in secondary scholarly sources, it is certainly characterized as a "neoliberal think-tank" by many.[2]
It's self-described as a "free-market think-tank", and there are many hits for that as well, probably with some overlap.[3]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
List of sources for "neoliberal"

  1. Neoliberal Hegemony: A Global Critique p. 41, etc
  2. A Brief History of Neoliberalism David Harvey, Oxford University Press, 2005
  3. The End of Laissez-Faire?: On the Durability of Embedded Neoliberalism p. 12 Britain's oldest and leading neoliberal think tank
  4. Academic Identities—Academic Challenges? American and European Experience... p. 173 the leading neoliberal think tank in the UK
  5. Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond, p. 42 the influential neoliberal think tank
  6. The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, p. 396
  7. Transnational Communities: Shaping Global Economic Governance p. 320
  8. Western Welfare in Decline: Globalization and Women's Poverty, p. 58
  9. Contemporary Adulthood and the Night-Time Economy, p. 28
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: I assume that you have not seen the above-posted sources describing the think tank as neoliberal. I will proceed to add them to the body and then to the lead, according to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If you have any further objections, bring sources, and read WP:NPOV as well as WP:RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Potentially in the body, as long as you cite who specifically uses this erroneous and outdated term, but I believe that would be inappropriate in the lead. It's just not true. Please don't turn this article into an attack page. The lead should be expanded with some summarised history of the impact the think tank has had on public policy; it should not include opinions.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand your concerns, and do not intend to turn this into an "attack page".
You can appreciate the large amount of information in the sources listed above, and frankly, I don't have time to work on this article much, but the characterization of "neoliberal" can be used meaningfully with regard to certain policies, alignment between Reagan and Thatcher, privatization, etc. The most common policies associated neoliberalism in this context are deregulation, non-interference of government in markets, market fundamentalism, supply-side economics, etc. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute of Economic 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 16:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Watchdog slams IEA over pro-Brexit report backed by Jacob Rees-Mogg

This should be included somewhere

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/01/iea-brexit-jacob-rees-mogg-charity-commission

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_of_Economic_Affairs/Archives/2018&oldid=1136819223"