Talk:Adam Smith Institute

updates, May 2009

I've made a few additions and amendments to this page, such as adding the founders' links with the Conservative Party and a few more details on the Omega Project, and have moved and changed the paragraph regarding Adam Smith International. Details regarding AS International were previously uncited and had apparently been added by an employee of the organisation. The page is still a bit of a mess, admittedly. I think it's made it less POV-skewed but would appreciate any comment.--JETM (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It looks better now, thanks. FYI, I copied parts concerning Douglas Mason's work from his obituary, and had forgotten to include the reference. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality

This article reads like an advert for the ASI. It possibly needs re-writing. 194.73.150.229 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just making a note of a few September 2012 refs that came up when I searched Adam Smith International government contracts in case someone else wants to add something before I get around to it. Obviously more research into recent years warranted.

• 'Poverty barons' who make a fortune from taxpayer-funded aid budget (Telegraph/2012):

The managing director of the London-based development consultancy Adam Smith International (ASI), which gets most of its income from DFID, paid himself a salary and dividends totalling almost £1.3million in 2010...Adam Smith International — which grew out of, but is now not related to, the Right-wing think-tank, the Adam Smith Institute — was paid £37million by DFID last year to promote the free market in the Third World. Its total turnover that year was £53.6million, with profits of £5million, up 10 per cent on 2010.

• UK government cost-cutting could put aid programmes at risk, The Guardian, more details; also this one.
• The fat cats of foreign aid: Ministers 'to target consultants paid £500m by the taxpayer', Daily Mail.

So FYI til and if get around to it. CarolMooreDC 17:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: the last of those refs is no longer considered a WP:RS.

Of the others, the Telegraph one is cited in the article only for a subsidiary point so could be better used, and the Guardian ones do not seem to be cited at all. So yes, these WP:RS should indeed be used to improve the article. Would welcome your effort if you can spare it. Zazpot (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Smith Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508055720/http://www.adamsmithinternational.com:80/content/management-team-0 to http://www.adamsmithinternational.com/content/management-team-0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.adamsmith.org/images/stories/flattaxuk.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/d41d8cd9-Heath%20Flat%20Tax%20Paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224060621/http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/education/open-access-for-uk-schools/ to http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/education/open-access-for-uk-schools/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberty League (UK)

Anyone here know whether the Liberty League (UK) is still functioning? Whether it has been folded into some other organization?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The ASI’s Forum, held on a Saturday in early December, is a one-day successor to the Liberty League Freedom Forum conferences, and like them, attracts over 300 guests, mostly students or people in their early 20s. It is very high powered, covering both esoteric and specialist topics as well, with speaks who are prominent, knowledgeable, and highly entertaining. It gives students a chance to network with each other and with the speakers." [1]. Would this page be a proper merge target for some of the informaiton now at Liberty League (UK).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adam Smith Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001062711/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article24672.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article24672.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://whofundsyou.org/org/adam-smith-institute

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).

• 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) 14:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Riverboat party scandal

Original text I'm unhappy with: In November 2018, it emerged that in July 2018 the Institute welcomed a supporter, who had been sentenced for possession of child porn less than a year earlier, to a party on a riverboat sailing on the Thames, attended by teenagers. The teenagers' concerns about his presence were reportedly dismissed out of hand by the Institute.[28][29]

Wikiwrangler (talk) The heading of this section is tendentious. On examining the facts, this is a non-story at best but it seems to come across as "ASI invites known paedophile to children's party". That's pretty much the headline on both newspapers that are cited as sources for this paragraph. The reality is anyone can attend but numbers are limited (because it's a boat cruise) so that's why it has to be "invite only". The event is for over-18s only and as the article states, ASI employ a firm to check IDs to ensure nobody under 18 gets on board. That's not to say some teenagers manage to do so anyway but it was absolutely against the intentions of the ASI. The complainant mentioned in the newspapers said there were under-age guests present. How did she know? Did she herself check the IDs of all those present? Legally, under-age is below the age of 16. She also says that "bosses were silent" and did not listen to their complaint. What were they supposed to do? They were on a boat - throw him overboard on the basis of hearsay? After the event and after they had checked the facts, again as the report makes clear, they banned him from ever attending another ASI event. There is no suggestion anywhere that they knew before he was "invited" that he was on the sex-offenders register. All these mitigating facts that might help a Wikipedia reader better understand the reality were omitted. In conclusion, this is a non-story and because of the way it is written I contend it is only included to do damage to the ASI. It is certainly not encyclopedic. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrangler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwrangler (talk) I've added a tag to the article although I feel it merits immediate removal. On reflection this paragraph really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's highly selective about what it quotes resulting in a biased and misleading account. Nobody at the ASI knew of this guy's history before he was "invited" and they did not ignore the complaint, they investigated the facts and banned him from attending again. The way this piece is written is scurrilous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrangler (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Template:POV, the section does "fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources", so the template was not appropriate for the section. Zazpot (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal This doesn't merit featuring on the page. It doesn't meet basic criteria of notability.

As wikipedia guidelines state:

"Wikipedia is not a news source ... it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage"

Some undesirable person attending one of their events once, has little to no bearing on the work of the institute and isn't useful information for somebody interested in the Think Tank or their work.

I also worry about the neutrality of this story - particularly given the original draft that was published and the subject matter. Yes there is a reference to two news sources, but if we wrote a section for every single new hit on every think tank, we would have very incoherent and uninformative articles very quickly. The articles themselves are close to gossip, with various unsourced anonymous references within.

By comparison, the funding debate is more interesting, as funding sources can influence the work of a think tank.

LibertyLegend (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You say, as though it somehow justifies deleting the section (it doesn't; I'll explain why): It doesn't meet basic criteria of notability. ... As wikipedia guidelines state: "Wikipedia is not a news source ... it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage" But the guideline you have quoted is about "whether a given topic warrants its own article." As such, your argument is a straw man, because nobody here is suggesting that the ASI riverboat scandal is an event that deserves its own article. That guideline says absolutely nothing that precludes keeping the section to which you are objecting.

You also say, Some undesirable person attending one of their events once, has little to no bearing on the work of the institute and isn't useful information for somebody interested in the Think Tank or their work. You make it sound as though he showed up of his own accord, and that his presence was not welcomed by the ASI. But that is not what happened, according to the news reports. He was invited to the event by the ASI, even though he had a relevant conviction and was on the sex offenders register. This suggests a failure of the ASI in its duty of care towards the teenagers it had invited to the event. (What kind of organisation spends that kind of money on an event to which it is inviting young people, without checking the invitees against the sex offenders register?) Also, the teens' concerns were apparently not heeded by the ASI. This suggests a wilful failure in that duty of care. This is notable stuff, and it is understandable that it was reported by multiple newspapers. In turn, having received that level of coverage in WP:RS, it is appropriate for a concise summary of the event (a sentence or two) to be included in the Wikipedia article.

You say, The articles themselves are close to gossip, with various unsourced anonymous references within. I note that the pieces concerned were not published as opinion pieces, so either you are seriously accusing the newspapers concerned of committing libel (in which case, one would expect the ASI to take them to court, which does not seem to have happened); or else you are disputing that they are WP:RS (in which case, take it up at the relevant place, not here); or else this objection falls flat. I would add that journalists, too, have a duty of care to their sources, especially if those sources are minors, which may be the case here, so it is hardly surprising that the sources were anonymous in this instance.

So, I can't say I agree with your objection in any respect. Zazpot (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited 19:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Investigated for breaches of charities rules

Original text I'm unhappy about: In December 2018, the Institute, which turns out to consist of at least three different legal entities (a British company, a British charity and an American non-profit foundation), was reported to be under investigation by the Charity Commission for improper use of funds. Charities in England and Wales are required to be genuinely independent from other entities, and cannot perform political campaigning.[30] Contributors giving £1,000 a year were offered “opportunities to attend power lunches and patrons dinners with influential figures, including politicians, ministers, journalists and academics.”[31]

Wikiwrangler (talk) The Charity Commission investigation is as a result of an article in the Guardian which implies that the ASI is engaged in political campaigning and is misusing charitable funds. The Guardian article quotes the Charity Commission as saying they are examining the accounts for potential areas on non-compliance. The Charity Commission are not quoted as having any concerns about political campaigning. Is this because there is no evidence of any? Despite that, this paragraph goes on about just that, saying donors who give £1000 are able to meet influential figures, including government ministers. Well, guess what? The present government is Conservative, and back when Labour was in office it would have been Labour ministers that supporters would have been meeting. Here's something I found on .archive.com from 2008 It's only about one of their groups but it gives a flavour.

   Past TNG speakers have included the Rt Hon. Michael Howard QC MP, the Rt. Hon. David Blunkett, Rt Hon. Michael Portillo MP, Andrew Neil, Boris Johnson MP, Matthew Parris (The Times), Stephen Twigg MP, Ivor Caplin MP, the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, and Bill Emmott (former Editor of the Economist).

Politicians from all sides. From more recent ASI circulars I have received, present-day politicians supporters can meet include: Owen Jones, Siobhan McDonagh, Peter Tatchell, and Ian Murray, very much Labour party, very much not right wing. Then of course there is the radical left-wing Greek Finance Minister (at the time) Yanis Varoufakis who Tweeted his thanks the ASI for endorsing his debt-swapping proposal. So the ASI cannot seriously be accused of political campaigning when they are demonstrably active across the political spectrum.

This paragraph needs to be re-edited to reflect that. Or simply deleted. It is plainly not encyclopedic, it more properly belongs in a gossip column, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrangler (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiwrangler (talk) I've added a tag to this article as nothing has happened since I flagged my concerns. I hope this is the proper way to go about it although I feel the whole thing should simply be deleted. Maybe an experienced editor can review it and decide to do exactly that? It's just a biased gossip piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrangler (talk • contribs) 00:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't substantiate your objections:

the ASI cannot seriously be accused of political campaigning when they are demonstrably active across the political spectrum. Riiight. Regardless, the section does not accuse anyone of political campaigning. It simply notes concisely (because this is an encyclopaedia) that the ASI is under investigation for improper use of funds and also concisely notes, for context, the key limits on charities' behaviours. Zazpot (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It's just a biased gossip piece. No, the section concisely summarises (because this is an encylopaedia) a WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited Zazpot (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Move section This section ought to be move to under the funding heading. It's not really "history"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyLegend (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@LibertyLegend: a Charity Commission (CC) investigation is a rare and notable event in the history of a charity. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for the investigation of the ASI to be described under the "History" section.

The "Funding" section, by contrast, is about where the ASI obtains its funds, not about how it uses them. As such, the investigation (which might cover both sourcing and usage of funds) is at least partly off-topic there.

If you want to move the sentence that Proxima Centauri added, about the ASI's alleged sourcing of funds in exchange for meetings with ministers, to the "Funding" section, that would be fine by me as it would be 100% on-topic, but I think the rest of the CC investigation prose should be kept in the "History" section. Zazpot (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with moving that sentence, disagree with your overall argument.

Unless the Charity Comission does something, it’s not material.

Even then, the ASI as a think tank is not a charity. It is a company. This is according to the investigation!

It has two charitable entities, one in the USA and one in the U.K., who roles are presumably/supposedly charitable, and the concern that is being investigated is that the U.K. one is not wholly charitable/in breach of charity rules/overlapping too much with the company.

In the history of a think tank, this is not a big item, but a matter of its different legal entities and whether or not one of them is genuinely charitable.

It’s not a major history item. That section should be reserved for history. Items like, when was it founded, who by, what major things did they do over time...

I’m all for keeping the content, just think it ought to be elsewhere. Either under “funding” and expanded section “funding and legal entities” or under its own dedicated section if something more significant happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyLegend (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s not a major history item. Yes, it is. The investigation is quite literally newsworthy, and may pose an existential threat to the ASI as currently constituted. If in time the investigation concludes that all was in order, and this is reported in WP:RS, then it too should be noted in the article. Zazpot (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Existential threat" - not at all LibertyLegend (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Environment and climate change

It may be a good idea to add a related section, assuming sources exist, —PaleoNeonate – 05:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)