Talk:International Policy Network
- 1 Comments by Julian Morris, 11 June 2006
- 2 Query to Gangle
- 3 Interesting edits
- 4 in the article: "opposing the right of poor people to have access to AIDS drugs"
- 5 Alleged link to UKIP - not supported by reference
- 6 "The IPN on Climate Change" section - quotes Observer article as if it were original report
- 7 "A thinly-disguised attack on IPN's activities" - er, why?
- 8 Front group claims
Comments by Julian Morris, 11 June 2006
I recently made some changes challenging the fase and defamatory remarks that have been posted on this site in order to improve its accuracy. These have been deleted and in the false and defamatory remarks have reappeared. In so doing, the editor is behaving libellously.
The cliam that IPN is a corporate front group is a lie. To continue to repeat the lie in spite of corrections having been made suggests malice on your part. I suggest that you remove this claim.
There are many other inaccuracies remaining on the page, which seems to have been written by monomaniac opponents of the free society.
Julianmorris, 11 Jun 2006
- Julian, could you please outline on this page (as I previously requested) precisely which elements of the article are inaccurate, and then we can take this forward? --Neoconned 11:24, 11 Jun 2006 (EDT)
Query to Gangle
Hi Gangle -- two queries -- 1) translation of the title of Carlo's Waco book. http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico14.html has it as WACO: An American State Massacre rather than "Waco: a state massacre in the US'. 2)Do we know that his chapter in Okonski's climate book was about or know its title? cheers -- bob
I've rolled back changes removing Linda Whetstone, Stephanie Drnasin, and Damian Nixon by 18.104.22.168. The IPN website still lists the first two, and Nixon is still referred to in articles on the site.
A previously rolled back deletion on 11 Jan 2005 had attempted to remove a reference to funding from Exxon Mobil. This was from an IP address from the same ISP, of 22.214.171.124, so we might assume this is the same person. (126.96.36.199 is the same IP address as the network IPN's e-mail newsletter comes from.)
Looking back in time, I notice another deletion I previously missed from the same person, regarding links with the CEI and the Sustainable Development Network. I am reinstating this paragraph, too.
in the article: "opposing the right of poor people to have access to AIDS drugs"
Really? That's unbelievable, I read very good articles by the IPN. Could anyone prove this please? --188.8.131.52 12:10, 6 Mar 2006 (EST)
The article makes this claim:
- Its director, Mr Julian Morris, is an adviser to the UK Independence Party 
In fact, the reference given no longer supports that claim. The Guardian have added a preamble stating: "In the article below, we said Julian Morris of the International Policy Network had agreed to advise Ukip on the environment. Mr Morris would like to make clear that he has not been contacted by Ukip requesting his advice and he has not agreed to advise it on environmental policy."
So I'm removing the above sentence from the article. I would imagine that it was added in good faith, at a time when the reference did appear to support the claim. --Neoconned 09:04, 11 Jun 2006 (EDT)
"The IPN on Climate Change" section - quotes Observer article as if it were original report
I'm moving this here because it misleadingly quotes an Observer article  as if it were the IPN's original report. In fact, some of the expressions used in the Observer article don't occur anywhere in the IPN's report. For example, the word "myth" does not occur anywhere in it. David King was indeed called "an embarrassment" (according to the Observer), but not by the IPN's report - the comment was made by Julian Morris the week before the report's publication. I'm going to add a link to the original IPN report, and try to summarize it more accurately. I'll also make clear the origin of the "embarrassment" comment (if Julian Morris wants to dispute the accuracy of that part of the Observer's report, please let us know). --Neoconned 13:46, 11 Jun 2006 (EDT)
- In November 2004, IPN released a report claiming that "climate change is 'a myth', sea levels are not rising and Britain's chief scientist is 'an embarrassment' for believing catastrophe is inevitable." It called "the science warning of an environmental disaster caused by climate change ... 'fatally flawed'" and contested predictions that the global sea level would increase by a meter over the next century, saying that "sea level rises will reach a maximum of just 20cms." Moreover, the report listed some benefits of global warming, including "increasing fish stocks in the north Atlantic and reducing the incidence of temperature-related deaths among vulnerable people."
"A thinly-disguised attack on IPN's activities" - er, why?
I'm with Julian Morris on this one: I cannot see how Blundell's letter can be interpreted in this way. He doesn't appear to mention the IPN or allude to it in the letter at all. So I'm removing this sentence from the article. If someone can justify or explain it, please do so. --Neoconned 14:19, 11 Jun 2006 (EDT)
- A thinly-disguised attack on IPN's activities appeared in a letter in the Financial Times by none other than one of the IPN's trustees, John Blundell. 
Front group claims
I've identified which edit introduced the claim that IPN is a "front group". Here it is (14 Aug 2005). It was made by an unregistered contributor at 184.108.40.206. The article, since its creation in Dec 2003, had previously described the IPN as a charity. Since that contributor offered no new evidence to support using the much stronger and more loaded term, I propose reverting to the previous description.
The same edit also made this change:
- "The IPN is also linked, via its staff and web hosting arrangements, to the Sustainable Development Network."
- "The IPN runs a range of front groups including the Sustainable Development Network."
For the same reason, I'm going to revert to the previous wording.
Finally, the same edit removed quite a bit of information from the article, for example about Carlo Stagnaro. We probably should take a look at why that information was removed (but I'm not going to now). --Neoconned 14:42, 11 Jun 2006 (EDT)