Talk:Maxim Institute

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

Conforms to NPOV?[edit]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Some of the language is ambiguous, misleading and cannot be verified. For example:

“Maxim claims not to be an overtly Christian organisation, even though some argue their work is informed by a Christian worldview.”

It is also irrelevant to include reference to Richard Prebble’s views of the Institute as it is an opinion, not fact. It is biased to include third party opinion. TheDilettante 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to conform to the NPOV policy. The paragraph with Richard Prebble's views was removed and small changes have been made to improve the accuracy and neutrality. TheDilettante 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to the article on 3rd April 2006 do not conform to the NPOV policy. Because it is not neutral the credibility of the article is undermined. Information that can not be cited or proven as fact should not be included. TheDilettante 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the last two changes to the article seem to be antagonistic towards the Institute, and focus excessively on opposing voices, including linking to spurious media mentions and no mainstream media. Equipoise 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing the external Critic link for its spuriousness and also the external Public Address link which should go under Bruce Logan’s Wikipedia article. TheDilettante 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the removal of the Critic link. It is not spurious, but is a topical piece profiling the Maxim Institute and highlighting its letter-to-the-editor broadcasts. Our article seems a bit too uncritical now, if anything, so I think removing this link would degrade our article.
I'm not sure about moving the Public Address interview, which covers the Maxim Institute's position on the Civil Unions bill. I think it fits in here better than in our Bruce Logan article, but I'm not convinced it helps this article much either. Perhaps it should just be deleted. -- Avenue 00:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Avenue and have removed the Bruce Logan link. TheDilettante 23:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been heaps of commentary on Maxim over the past few years. I'm keen to get a balance, but I wonder if, rather than link to the Critic article, which seems to focus more on attacking 'Steve Taylor' (who is this guy?) and developing conspiracy theories around Maxim, we just remove external links. Equipoise 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has this article been steadily re-written since this discussion? Right now it reads like an advert for the organisation. I'm surprised at the lack of any mention of the considerable criticism or controversy of the organisation, at least in the early-mid 2000s. Anarchangel23 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalising information[edit]

There's a lot of information on Evidence (which is now discontinued) and NZ votes (confined to the 2005 general election campaign). Perhaps it would be best to rationalise all these into a 'History' section? Equipoise 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced Commentary[edit]

I have included balancing commentary related to the second item about awards. At some point soon, I will link to the Scoop Maharey and NZEI articles that contained the observations about research quality. As it was, it looked far too celebratory, and only told one side of the story, thus violating NPOV requirements.

User: Calibanu 15:15, 07 May 2006

Supporting Citizen Participation[edit]

I notice Calibanu has qualified "citizen participation" with "social conservative" in the second paragraph, as well as adding a whole bunch of extra info. I fear the original intention of that sentence has been lost, and completely misunderstood by the likes of Calbanu and Liefting in their amendments.

We're not saying Maxim aren't social conservative in outlook, but the fact is the NZ Votes campaign was run as non-partisan as possible - at the New Plymouth one even Harry uynhoven commended Maxim on this. That particular paragraph pertained to this support and initiative which Maxim provided for democratic participation in general.

Calbanu's recent amendments require more thought and critique with regards to this aspect of Maxim's identity and work. A.J.Chesswas 03:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Duynhoven tended to be Labour's sole remaining hardline social conservative MP until he New Plymouth defeat in 2008. It is therefore unsurprising that he would therefore share some convergent views with the Institute on some of its past Christian Right agenda perspectives like opposing LGBT relationship equality, decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia and other such concerns Calibanu (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]
My edit was supposed to reflect their political lobbying in general rather that the nzvotes website. I was of the impression that nzvotes was quite non-partisan. It seems Nicky Hager has some doubts about its neutrality but I am now curious to read The Baubles of Office mentioned by the latest anon edit. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nzvotes.org contained text matching text in 2002 Challenge Weekly Christian Newspaper article[edit]

Maxim Institute's original General Policy section for the Green Party on the nzvotes.org site contained text matching a summary of the Green Party contained in an article published in Challenge Weekly Christian Newspaper on July 22, 2002. I have a copy of the emails from August 2005 between myself and Diana Piggott, nzvotes.org communications co-ordinator, on this issue. I may release the full emails closer to the next election. In the emails I challenged Maxim Institute's claim that they were running a "non-partisan" website, and asked them to change the Green's General Policy statement to be the four principles of The Green Charter. After I made two requests, they made the change in all the relevant locations on the nzvotes.org site.

Diana Piggott stated that "To date, all content including party principles and policy has literally been cut and pasted into the nzvotes.org site to ensure that no discrepancies occur". My response was: "Yet you choose which bits to cut and paste, where from, and which bits to ignore. That gives you too much power to represent parties in a manner that is favourable to your political ideologies." -- Bob, 1 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.82.242 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Views?[edit]

In reference to the above, clearly the Maxim Institute has moved away from its hardline social conservative political perspectives that characterised the Logan era. However, whether that social conservatism is wholly absent is a moot point, given that it still actively opposes euthanasia law reform and has strong connections to the UK "Centre for Social Justice". Iain Duncan-Smith, CSJ's founder, is a conservative Catholic and opponent of liberal abortion access, LGBT civil partnerships and inclusive adoption reform in the United Kingdom

Calibanu (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

Time for an update?[edit]

This article seems a bit out of date. It is structured around a primary narrative of a shift from social to fiscal conservatism that cites no sources, and which I'm not sure holds.

May I suggest some new sections for the article:

  • Background (this would collate the information on the Institute's founding)
  • Public policy engagement (detailing the stated positions that the Institute has taken, including the NZVotes election campaigns, and other political interventions by the Institute)
  • Research and publications (a chronological list, with more detail than is currently there about what the publications were about)
  • Criticism and controversy (public responses to the Institute's policy positions and research, including public debates that the Institute has participated in, and other controversies, such as the plagiarism accusations against Bruce Logan)
  • Structure and staff (changes in leadership, location, etc)
  • Sir John Graham lectures (I'm not sure whether this should be under public policy or not, but a short list would be helpful)
  • Internship programme (this is a prominent feature on the Institute's website, and probably deserves its own section)
  • Awards

This seems to be in line with how articles for comparative organisations are written.

Pfardentrott (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxim 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, 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 12:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maxim 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) 22:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxim_Institute&oldid=1208407709"