Talk:Institute of Economic Affairs/Archives/2024

This is not the BBC
I invite User:EditorAtLarge1976 to explain the changes they are insisting on implementing. More specifically; Thanks. Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why they think that BBC style is at all relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own guidelines.
 * Why the IEA cannot be described as right wing, as per multiple sources.
 * How the IEA isn't a pressure group, despite its stated intentions of influencing government policy.
 * Where is the source that identifies the IEA as Britain's oldest?


 * BBC style attempts to be neutral as opposed to private journals that write with bias.
 * BBC style rejects describing the IEA as right wing as that is pejorative and the sources using such description are all doing so to oppose the IEA.
 * IEA is not a pressure group because it advocates for free markets as the best means of improving outcomes, but there is no use of pressure on politicians.
 * There are only a handful of free market think tanks in the UK (e.g. Adam Smith Institute). None of the others were formed before 1955. IEA is identified as the oldest or original free market think tank by the widely used online database for organisations Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/institute-of-economic-affairs EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC stlye attempts....
 * BBC style rejects....
 * While your claims about BBC style are without merit, there is a larger, overriding issue:
 * BBC style is not used on this website. Wikipedia has its own policy and style guidelines, which you can read about here. It does not preclude describing a right-wing lobby organisation as right-wing, where it has been consistently referred to as such in reliable sources. The type of neutrality aimed for on this website is a neutral representation of the reliable literature on the topic. Your claim that "the sources using such description are all doing so to oppose the IEA" is a complete fantasy that merits little discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We can only, yet again, point out that this is not the BBC. Please stop producing it as an example that Wikipedia should follow. I've put a link on your talk page that tries to explain what you're confused about here as to Wikipedia's purpose and guidelines.  They are not the same as the BBC's.  Have you a source for you claim about the oldest think tank?  Because it looks that you have determined this through original research.  Again, something that would be encouraged on the BBC, but is not permitted on Wikipedia.  'Cos they're different organisations with different aims. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * About Crunchbase, refer to the central Wikipedia page Wp:RSP, which lists some of the sources that are frequently mentioned on Wikipedia and what the site-wide consensus of editors has determined about their potential use. Crunchbase is deprecated, meaning that it is never used to establish facts because it is considered unreliable. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are to be neutral. In the UK, most media is right or left leaning (e.g. Telegraph right-leaning, Guardian left-leaning). Although the BBC is accused of being left-leaning, it is has a mandate to be neutral, and therefore its style guide is the better choice when categorising a group. It is widely recognised as being pejorative and not descriptive to say that someone or something is "left wing" or "right wing". https://www.dictionary.com/e/words-divide-us/ Therefore it goes against Wikipedia guidelines to use left-leaning press to describe a right-of-centre group or to use right-leaning press to describe a left-of-centre group. EditorAtLarge1976 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Neutrality doesn't mean whitewashing. The BBC styleguide is completely irrelevant in this context as it has no bearing on WP:MOS. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV. You have either not bothered to read or failed to understand the meaning of neutral point of view as used in writing Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @EditorAtLarge1976 "It is widely recognised as being pejorative and not descriptive to say that someone or something is "left wing" or "right wing"." - Utter nonsense. Left wing and right wing have been used for centuries to describe political positions.  Positions proudly held by millions, and can only be deployed as pejoratives by those who opposed them.  Any cursory glance through Wikipedia will find thousands of articles using both teams, as an accurate and descriptive term that reflects reliable sources.  Which is exactly its use here.
 * If your difficulty is "left wing" sources calling it "right wing".. The Telegraph, and again, and describing the director as a "a leading right winger, while the Times considered it both right wing and mysterious.
 * As I've explained to you before; the BBC is a source of original information and research, and sometimes even opinion, while Wikipedia is none of these. What editorial policies may work for the BBC is not a guide to how an encyclopedia works.  Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)