Talk:Mackenzie Institute

"Some have accused Thompson..."

Wow, that's pretty terrible weasel wording. Who are those "some"? Why it turns out it was someone who called in to a radio show. Tsk tsk. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a caller whose concerns were highlighted in a mainstream newspaper report -- which is not quite the same thing. In any event, you're correct to note that the original wording wasn't quite right; I should have written "some have accused Thompson of paranoia/excessive vigilance" or something similar, rather than highlighting one particular concern. CJCurrie 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over the article again. It's fairly clear that the author intended to portray Thompson's critics as focusing on issues of excessive vigilance and paranoia, but he didn't actually say this outright -- ergo, I've made the wording more neutral. People shouldn't rush to judgement on simple, and easily-corrected, mistakes. CJCurrie 05:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When you've added this material in an effort to make a WP:POINT, it's worth checking. Can you show a copy of the "class war" cite? <<-armon->> 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead, Chandler's Roots of Change conference is attracting the kinds of blood-and-guts rightists who sparked the Reform party, but who - as Reform attempts to become more respectable -find themselves relegated to the sidelines.

Anti-abortionists such as Rev. Ken Campbell of Renaissance Canada mixed with opponents of bilingualism like Ron Leitch of the Association for the Preservation of English in Canada.

Dick Fields of the Voice of Canadians (opposition to multiculturalism and human rights commissions) was there yesterday as was Robert Metz of the more libertarian Freedom Party (legalization of marijuana, opposition to medicare).

They heard speakers slam workers' compensation and publicly funded abortion clinics. They shivered as John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute warned of class war coming to Canada, led by a coalition of rural, gun-toting militias, downtown Trotskyists and animal liberation radicals.

(per the citation mentioned in the article)

It probably won't surprise you to learn that I believe the two deleted paragraphs should be returned, post haste. CJCurrie 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an article about the MI, but one about the Reform Party and the "evil Canadian Right". The MI seems only to be mentioned in passing. <<-armon->> 21:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not specifically about the Reform Party, but about the radical, extra-parliamentary right in Canada. Some might find it significant that the Mackenzie Institute was among the organizations represented.

Even if the Chandler conference is deemed insignificant, however, I cannot fathom the logic of deleting the paragraph on the MI's anti-terrorist pamphlet. CJCurrie 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, well how is this particular "press release" or "pamphlet" notable? I don't see it. <<-armon->> 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either; why this particular press release, and why that specific article that barely mentions the Mackenzie Institute? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment or your edit summary. Two of the newspaper sources you've just deleted are "Institute offers anti-terrorism tip sheet" (Hamilton Spectator, 10 August 2005, A6) and "Think-tank urges public to watch out for terrorists: 'Our turn is coming soon'" (National Post, 9 August 2005, A4). Neither is a press release, and the central focus of both is the Mackenzie Institute. Did you revert more than you intended?--G-Dett 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Comments from talk pages: I still don't see how their "signs to watch out for" is notable. Looks like a bog-standard profile to me. The additional info you've just added doesn't clarify its notability. <<-armon->> 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) The document is one of the few "anti-terror" manuals to be released in Canada, and received attention (and controversy) within credible newspaper sources. I'm not sure how you can describe it as "non-notable". CJCurrie 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) <<-armon->> 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that the "things to look out for" doesn't appear to be anything other than a standard profile on the behaviour of terrorists. It didn't appear to attract any controversy or anything like that, so why would we report this one in particular. What's the point? <<-armon->> 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be removed - why report this one in particular? In recent years, the Mackenzie Institute has published two issues of a magazine that address a range of topics, as well as additional articles on their website. It seems that reporting this one article is really meant to hype up the article more than it needs. Also, it is quite a dated article, so I don't see the relevance of including it anymore.

In terms of being a radical, extra-parliamentary right in Canada - the Mackenzie Institute is only considered such on this Wikipedia page. Perhaps it can be adjusting to say something along the lines of "They're considered to hold more conservative values and traditions." Mackenzie86 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Research Institute and Think Tank

In what sense is the Mackenzie Institute a "research institute and think tank"? In my understanding, a "think tank" is a quasi-academic entity staffed by full-time researchers with PhDs and publications on their CVs. A "research institute" has institutional facilities, a street address, and so on.

The Mackenzie Institute's "address" is a P.O. Box at a Toronto train station.

The Mackenzie Institute does not appear to publish full-length studies or peer-review work of any sort. The authors of its short online "newsletters" and "commentaries" seem relatively obscure, and do not appear to have scholarly resumes at all. All of their work appears to be in the form of brief, self-published, footnote-free online posts. At the risk of sounding cruel, I'll quote a few passages from these commentaries, to give a sense of their research depth and think-tank flavor:

1. "After years of seeing freedom of speech being defended by the likes of pedophiles, pornographers and Neo-Nazis, it is a welcome relief to speak up for editorial cartoonists against the two-faced demagogues of the Islamic World." (from "Cartoon Jihad")
2. "One should also be suspicious about other unusual activities, including: ¶A large group of men (particularly, but not exclusively, 'Middle Eastern' looking men in their 20s or 30s) who occupy a house, apartment, or motel rooms with no apparent purpose; and who have no apparent patterns of arrival/departure consistent with commuting to work or school. ¶If there is a smell of chemicals coming from the above site, call it in immediately! They may be cooking up explosives." (from "Precursors of Hostile Intent: Signs of a Potential Terrorist Attack")
3. "I believe that the rise of Middle Eastern organised crime in Sydney will have an impact on society unlike anything we have ever seen. In the early 1980s, as a young detective I was attached to the Drug Squad at the old CIB (Criminal Intelligence Bureau). I remember executing a search warrant at Croydon, where we found nearly a pound of heroin. I know that now sounds very familiar; however, what set this heroin apart was that it was Bekkah Valley heroin, markedly different from any heroin I had seen. Number Four heroin from the golden triangle of South East Asia is nearly always off white, almost pure diamorphine. This heroin was almost brown. But more remarkable were the occupants of the house. They were very recent arrivals from Lebanon, and from the moment we entered the premises, we wrestled and fought with the male occupants, were abused and spat at by the women and children, and our search took five times longer because of the impediments placed before us by the occupants, including the women hiding heroin in baby nappies and on themselves and refusing to be searched by policewomen because of their religious beliefs." (from "The Rise of Middle Eastern Crime in Australia")

I took only very modest connoisseurial pleasure in selecting these passages. "Abused and spat at by the women and children" is admittedly a gem, but I didn't have to mine for it. These samples are representative.

As far as I can tell, the Mackenzie Institute doesn't even call itself a think tank or a research institute; it calls itself an "independent non-profit organization." It seems to be more or less a sort of poor-man's Counterpunch for the vigilantist right.

So why the puffery?--G-Dett 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called a "research institute" here. It called a "think tank" several times here (see sidebar) -another example here. Your analysis is not a valid objection. <<-armon->> 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Only one of the blurbs on your sidebar – written by a tabloid columnist – calls it a "think tank." Another columnist's blurb says it ranks among the "organizations generally considered to be the closest Canada has to think tanks," which is not the same thing. "Several," by the way, means three or more.

We can't call it a "think tank" (or even "something close to a think tank") on the basis of one or two blurbs. We can, if you insist, attribute the puffery and create a "praise" section for it, though I think the article would be better off without that.

The New York Times has made reference to the Mackenzie Institute only once (in 1991), the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times never. That one article (a news item, not an op-ed) called it a "research group." The Mackenzie Institute calls itself a "independent non-profit organization." I am going to put in the group's own wording, as that seems to me the best choice. Feel free to substitute the NYT's 1991 wording if you prefer it.--G-Dett 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg" on PBS states: MR. WATTENBERG: John Thompson, a former military intelligence officer, now directs the Mackenzie Institute, a strategic think tank in Toronto. If you need any more, google "mackenzie institute" "think tank". Give it up. <<-armon->> 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already done so, Armon, as you'll see from the mainspace.--G-Dett 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You did, sorry. <<-armon->> 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--G-Dett 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mackenzie Institute is a research institute in the sense that they publish research articles by experts and academics in the field. The authors have the option of include these publications on their CVs, of which most of them do. The Institute does have a physical office address that they do not advertise online.

The Mackenzie Institute's PO Box is at a Canada Post office, not a train station as noted above. That is their mailing address. The Institute has taken security measures to prevent potential attacks to their office (such as the pipe bomb incident). As such, they do not advertise their physical office address.

The Mackenzie Institute has attempted to rebrand over the years, so the example links are not working probably as a result of the website change. Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Waiting for the Kaboom"

It's pretty clear that this report caused a significant stir and is therefore notable. The two RS's provided by CJ that describe it as such are sufficient. The essay also brought the Mackenzie Institute to the attention of the Canadian Parliament's Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Thompson in fact was invited to address the Parliamentary subcommittee in late 2005 (38th parliament, 1st session). Thompson's exchange with Joe Comartin is illuminating, with regards both to the controversy surrounding "Kaboom" and to the institutional status of the Mackenzie Institute:

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Thompson, I saw some of your "Waiting for the Kaboom: Indicators to Watch for." I went to your website earlier this year, before I knew you were coming as a witness. You show yourself as the president of the Mackenzie Institute. I saw nothing on the website that indicates whether you have a board, an advisory committee, or how you're funded. Could you tell us what the Mackenzie Institute is?

Prof. John Thompson: We are funded and we are constituted as a registered charity. We do receive all of our funding from charitable foundations and interested individuals. We take no funding from any government source anywhere.

I do have a board; however, I don't list them publicly. As a result of some of the work we've done over the years, I have been shot at, I have received a mail bomb, and we've been harassed on a number of occasions by supporters of different terrorist organizations and some from organized crime. As a result, we tend to be extremely guarded about who is on our board, as we are guarded about where our office is located and where I live. If this sounds like it's being a little bit paranoid, well, sometimes if people are after you, then it's not really being paranoid.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Are your financial statements public?

Prof. John Thompson: Actually, no. We do send them in to Revenue Canada as we are supposed to do, but we ask that they not be shared, because we do not want to publicly identify which foundations are actually providing us with funding. Again, some of these foundations include people who have had experiences with terrorism themselves, often at a personal level. Again, they tend to be a little protective too.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Let me just make a statement, and then I'll stop, Mr. Chair.

I just found "Precursors of Hostile Intent: Signs of a Potential Terrorist Attack" quite offensive, particularly to the Muslim community. That's all I need to say.[1]

The transcript also makes clear that Thompson is a professor, which I should factor into my earlier comments about the Mackenzie institute being non-academic, not a think tank, etc.--G-Dett 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This still hasn't answered my question about how this particular report caused a "significant stir". I don't see it. 5 hits on "Precursors of Hostile Intent: Signs of a Potential Terrorist Attack" and 5 (repeats mostly) on "Waiting for the Kaboom: Indicators to Watch for". Comartin's "offense" was an off topic comment and was unexplained. They certainly have good reasons to be protective of their privacy. Here's an outside source on the letter bomb. That looks notable. <<-armon->> 08:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a great deal of press of any kind on the Mackenzie Institute. Within the scale of recognition the institute does have, the stir around "Kaboom" self-evidently meets and exceeds the threshold of notability. To borrow a phrase of yours, give it up.

I can't comment on whether Thompson has good reason to believe that "people are after me," except to say that a) it is of a piece with the boyish vigilantism, breathlessly bad prose and overall Tom-Sawyerishness of the Mackenzie Institute's glorified blog; and b) higher-profile, more controversial, more influential and frankly more competent activists with roughly the same ideological agenda as Thompson – I'm thinking in particular of Daniel Pipes and the Philadelphia Middle East Forum – manage to lead public lives, hold events in public fora, have institutional facilities at their disposal, list their advisory boards online, and see no need to skulk to a PO box at the train station in fake mustaches to pick up their mail.--G-Dett 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen some evidence that I haven't regarding the "stir"? <<-armon->> 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say with any certainty, because a) it's not clear to me if you've read the sources that have already been provided (from the National Post and the Hamilton Spectator, that is; you do seem to have run your eyes over the transcript from the session of Canadian Parliament where the stir came up); b) I'm not certain if those two half-hearted google searches represent the totality of your research efforts; and c) I can't glean your criteria for "notability" from our exchanges, and what little I have managed to glean seems protean and shifting. When the National Post – once, in passing – used the phrase "defense and security think-tank" to describe the MI, you found it notable; when that same National Post runs a whole story about "Think-tank urges public to watch out for terrorists: 'Our turn is coming soon'", you find it not notable. You don't say why not, except to say that you just "don't see it." When a TV talk show host who calls his own TV talk show a "think tank" also calls the Mackenzie Institute a "think tank," [2] that's as good as sourced for you; but when "Kaboom" is the subject of discussion in Canadian parliament, and is described by a prominent politician as "offensive, particularly to the Muslim community," you yawn and say "nothing notable," and sink deeper into your beanbag.

If you feel like adding something else to your gathering heap of sources attesting to the non-notability of this whole non-notable thing, there's this on Canadian television:

Copyright 2005 CTV Television, Inc.

CTV Television, Inc.

SHOW: CANADA AM

August 9, 2005, Tuesday 07:17:50 - 07:22:40 Eastern Time

LENGTH: 946 words

HEADLINE: Waiting for the terrorist "kaboom": Indicators to watch for

ANCHOR: Beverly Thomson

GUEST: John Thompson, Terrorism and Security Expert, MackenzieInstitute

THOMSON: Terrorists will deliver an attack in Canada or against Canadians overseas in the coming months or years ahead. That very blunt warning comes from the Mackenzie Institute. The Canadian think tank has even compiled a list of suspicious activities that Canadians should watch out for. For more, we are joined by terrorism and security expert John Thompson. He is with the Mackenzie Institute here in Toronto.

Good morning to you.

JOHN THOMPSON: Good morning.

THOMSON: You know, even Anne McLellan has said obviously Canada could be attacked, but this is pretty strong stuff, saying it will be attacked in the coming years. You've also compiled a list of things Canadians can do. Should Canadians be concerned and worried to the point that you're saying, you know, with a report that's entitled "Kaboom" which, you know, makes people a little bit nervous?

JOHN THOMPSON: Well, concerned, yes. Worried, no. Besides, the terrorist always hopes to impose a sense of terror in the audience. So, people should be concerned and they should be looking out. But to be paralyzed with fear or to refuse to ride the subway or something else silly like that? No. Live normally as possible. Just keep an eye out.

THOMSON: And you've gone one step further than even the federal government in terms of being very specific as to what kinds of

activities...

--G-Dett 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an updated link source to this article? It can't be found on the Mackenzie Institute's website anymore, likely due to their website refresh. The current staff are unable to comment on such an article as it is so outdated. It is also important to note that on their website, it does say that "The opinions of the writers published herein do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Mackenzie Institute. They are presented to inform broader social discourse." Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. This request isn't very clear, and should not use the edit request template, as you haven't provided the relevant sources/clear description of the changes that should be made. As such, there is nothing that I can do. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The request was to delete or at least limit the amount of information on the report "Waiting for the Kaboom: Indicators to Watch for". There is no current link to this article, thus can't be sourced or referenced properly on sites other than this Wikipedia page.Mackenzie86 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Valpy's characterization per WP:UNDUE

The Valpy bit is clearly a case of what's described here:

Several newspaper reports have described the institute as a conservative or right-wing organization.[7] Thompson has repeatedly rejected this description, describing himself as a "classical liberal".[8] He has written, "if being a traditional liberal these days means being condemned as a right-wing nut, I plead guilty".[9]

We can add that ref to that passage, or mention Valpy by name if you wish. This is not however, a soapbox for every commentator who thinks MI is a "bunch of right-wing nuts". Please try and keep it neutral. <<-armon->> 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well -- I'll adjust the wording at some point in the near future. On second thought, I don't see the need to do this; Valpy was referring to John Gunning, not to John Thompson. CJCurrie 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not however, a soapbox for every commentator who thinks Mackenzie Institute IS a "bunch of right-wing nuts". <<-armon->> 09:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I think a nationally-respected journalist is worthy of inclusion. CJCurrie 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my comments above. I don't object to including him, but let's not pretend that critic clearly on the left of Canadian politics is an unbiased source for a characterization of report MI produced. WP is not a soapbox, and this article is not the MI according to commentators associated with the NPD. If we were to write articles according to commentators associated with the Reform Party, I expect you'd see the problem a bit more clearly. <<-armon->> 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments made by John C. Thompson should be removed. He was with the organization years ago and since his departure, the Mackenzie Institute has tried to disassociate with him as much as possible. I also agree that this Wikipedia page should not be a soapbox for critics of the Institute. The outdated content on this page has and is continuing to hinder the Institute's attempts at moving forward/away from being too right-wing.Mackenzie86 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like there is a 2 to 1 consensus to do this, although the time difference is... I have removed the relevant comment in the article. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Have the comments already been removed? Looks like it's still in the article. Please advise which ones you worked on.Mackenzie86 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced information

I've made some adjustments to the recent edits made by an anonymous contributor. I would encourage that individual to provide sources if s/he wishes to return the information. CJCurrie (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error

"Founded in 1986 by Brigadier Dr. Maurice Tugwell, a former Parachute Regiment officer and British Army veteran of WW-2, Palestine (1947), the Malayian insurgency, Cyprus and Ulster." It should be "Malaysian" insurgency. Missing an 's'.

Mackenzie86 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is actually an incomplete sentence. It should say:

"It was founded in 1986 by Brigadier Dr. Maurice Tugwell, a former Parachute Regiment officer and British Army veteran of WWII, Palestine (1947), the Malaysian insurgency, Cyprus and Ulster." Mackenzie86 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Its mission is to "provide research and commentary on its subject matter, to promote informed public debate, and to hold to the proposition that our liberal democratic tradition must be safeguarded and fostered" It is also "concerned with the social and political stability of Canada, and works to enhance it when it can".

There should be a period after the word 'fostered' (first sentence). Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing spelling errors is not a controversial change, and does not require the edit request template, as no content is being added/removed. I have now made the changes. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Name of organization

The name of the Wikipedia page is the Mackenzie Institute but identifies as the full name in the beginning of the description. Can you add that the organization is currently more recognized and known for its short name? The organization does not use its full name in business anymore, in exception to government filings.

I.e. "The Mackenzie Institute for the Study of Terrorism, Revolution and Propaganda (in short, The Mackenzie Institute) is a think tank in Toronto, Ontario, Canada." Mackenzie86 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not much point to do this. I believe that it's quite obvious what the short name is, considering that it is the article name, and as such, there is no point to make the change. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Research

"The institute publishes online research papers on a wide variety of political matters, with a focus on terrorism, political extremism, warfare, and organized crime.[1]"

The Institute has expanded their research interests. It should be changed to:

"It is a non-profit organization working to engage Canadians—government officials, military personnel, academics, and citizens—on Canada’s national security interests, specifically on security matters impacting domestic and global audiences. It works to provide an ongoing open forum for global conversations on threats and security vulnerabilities, such as critical infrastructure, military and law enforcement issues, cyber-security and terrorism."Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it can also be added that the Mackenzie Institute works to make Canadian and international leaders more aware of matters critical to Canadian and North American security. As an independent think tank, it tries to bring a strategic and pragmatic approach to security matters that affect both domestic and global audiences.

It provides external independent thinking for policy makers, governments, private sector entities, educational institutions and the Canadian public. It provides an open forum for global conversations on the threats and security vulnerabilities we face in order to best advise these various sectors. It creates this forum through the commissioning and circulation of articles and in-depth research commentaries on relevant topics, timely videos based on interviews with subject-matter experts, research conferences for industry specialists and a sustained social media presence."

This is a more accurate representation of what the Institute has currently been doing over the past two years.Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Lots of content posted above has been copied from The institute's website, and obviously can't be implemented, as it is promotional and lacks sourcing. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Alexander Mackenzie

"The institute is named after Canadian explorer Sir Alexander Mackenzie."

As per his Wikipedia page, Alexander Mackenzie is actually Scottish explorer who explored Canada. This should be reworded or deleted completely.Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Scottish and added a wikilink to Scottish people for clarity. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

John C. Thompson

John Thompson is no longer affiliated with the Institute for over two years. Could his information be moved to the bottom of the page? He seems to be taking up a great deal of the Mackenzie Institute's Wikipedia page. Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have read over the passage, and the content seems well placed, since the person was a former president, and is now a television contributor to topics close to the institute's interest. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Afghanistan

"The Mackenzie Institute makes frequent comments on Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, and supports increased funding for the Canadian military generally."

This line should be deleted. The Mackenzie Institute no longer comments on Canada's military mission in Afghanistan as the military mission no longer exists. Though the last line for supporting increased funding for the Canadian Armed Forces still remain true. Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit denied. The changes proposed do not cite any references, and as such, are unverifiable. Because of that, they can't be applied to the article. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Scope and funding

"The institute is a non-profit organization that depends upon individual donors and charitable foundations; it does not accept government funding."

This statement is no longer true. The Institute has received multiple grants to hold conferences by government departments and works with them on public education on security matters. This sentence should be deleted and changed to the following:

"Working with colleagues in the US, Israel, and the UK, the Institute attempts to provide a world perspective on the various topics covered. The Institute has addressed audiences across Canada and in Washington, DC; London, England; Oslo, Norway; Herzliya, Israel; and Brussels, Belgium. Since its inception, the Institute has worked with Canadian government institutions, private sector organizations, educational bodies and other social interests to provide distinct, informed and independent perspectives on security matters.

The Mackenzie Institute is funded by tax-deductible private and corporate charitable donations. The Institute received large tax-assisted funding in 2003, which under agreement with the Canadian Revenue Agency formed the financial basis of its operations through to 2015."Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Declined, just as the previous one. The content is unverifiable (no references provided), and some of the proposed change's content may be considered promotional. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, the Mackenzie Institute does accept government funding now, particularly from the Department of National Defence to organize conferences. Referenced here and , with more to come.Mackenzie86 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Publications and conferences

There should be a section on current publications and projects. Something along the lines of:

"The Mackenzie Institute focuses on publishing regular articles and research papers on security and defence issues on their website. They are also the publishers of the Security Matters magazine. Topics range from terrorism, to national security, cyber security and warfare, foreign affairs, public policy and hybrid warfare.

In the past few years, the Mackenzie Institute has also hosted a variety of conferences and dinners to provide a forum to discuss matters of security and global affairs with experts and professionals in the field. Topics of these events have included foreign fighters and radicalization, critical infrastructure protection, cyber security, and Canadian military and defence issues.

Notable speakers include: • Alan W. Bell, President of Globe Risk International • Major-General (Ret’d) David Fraser, CMM, MSC, MSM, CD • Lieutenant-General J.M.M. Hainse, CMM, MSC, CD • Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, CMM, CD • The Honourable David Pratt, P.C., KStG • The Honourable Hugh Segal, CM"

Mackenzie86 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Denied just like the 2 requests above - content must be verifiable (cite reliable sources). Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If you need sources on Mackenzie Institute publications and events, they are available on their website... Events here: , articles here: and the Security Matters magazine here: . Where else can these be verified other than the website itself?Mackenzie86 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mackenzie 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/20060616153652/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/16/41/News/front.html to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/16/41/News/front.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120701113857/http://416-777-7777.com/article/252285 to http://416-777-7777.com/article/252285
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607213755/http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2005/precursors-attack.htm to http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2005/precursors-attack.htm

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) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)