Talk:Fraser Institute

Who founded this thing?

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?

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

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?

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 [1] (http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html) And that organizations like Greenpeace also do both research often not peer-reviewed and actively try promote their findings and agenda.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.

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]

Banlist 207.102.5.141?

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

Peer Review

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]

Reactionary?

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.

Xdamr^talk 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.