Talk:Prosperity Institute

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Hi there. I am Katrine and I work at the Legatum Institute. I would like to request the following changes to the article that will ensure its accuracy.

1. The Institute is funded by 40 donors including the Legatum Foundation, as substantiated by https://www.ft.com/content/fac8b53e-d840-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482. As such, the first sentence of the third paragraph of the current "History, funding, and controversies section" should be removed. That sentence is not substantiated by the source provided, nor is it relevant to this section. Suggested modification of the text: The Institute is currently located in Mayfair and funded by 40 donors, including the Legatum Foundation.^[1]
   

The reference substantiates the fact that your employers claim to having 40 donors. Public and verifiable records of those donors and the amounts they have given would be required to substantiate their existence and relevance. Hunc (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Christopher Chandler is not the founder of the Institute. I therefore request removal of the text: "by Christopher Chandler, a controversial businessman and hedge fund owner who owns the Dubai-based Legatum Group. Chandler and his brother, Richard, made their money in Russia in the 90s/2000s and at one time had a 4% stake in the Russian state-owned company, Gazprom" as it is both inaccurate and irrelevant to the Institute's page. The text should be modified to be: The Legatum Institute was founded in 2007.^[2]The Institute is a beneficiary of the Legatum Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Dubai-based Legatum Group.^[3]
   

Text modified so as to avoid stating that Christopher Chandler is the sole founder of the Institute. Hunc (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

1. A section on funding already exists in the article. Therefore, I am requesting that all the content about funding be moved to that section and the History section should be renamed "History and Structure" to remove redundancy and to adhere to WP:CRIT.
   

What section about funding?

I note that the present article seems entirely in line with WP:CRIT, but have removed the word "controversies" from the subheading. Hunc (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Katrine at LI (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope the above helps. Hunc (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hunc thank you for taking the time to consider these requests and implement some. With your edits in place, there are still several issues that remain unaddressed and/or inaccurate. I itemize them here:

1. The use of the word “controversial” to describe Mr. Chandler. It is not in line with NPOV and a violation of MOS:LABEL. Similarly, the extensive description of how he and his brother made their money is both inaccurate and irrelevant to the Institute’s page. The article should reflect the correct unbiased information as: The Legatum Institute was founded in 2007.^[1] The Institute is a beneficiary of the Legatum Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Dubai-based Legatum Group.^[2]
2. I challenge your replacement of the word "controversies" with "agenda" in the title of the first section. Agenda is not a neutral word and has negative implications. The title of the section should be "History and structure" and it should include only the information about the Institute's founding, its location, and management.
3. The fifth section of the article is entitled Funding. That is where the second, much of the third, and fourth paragraphs of the current "History, funding, agenda" section belong. This content should also be modified to adhere to NPOV with the removal of words like "considerable controversy" and "opaque offshore funding".

Thank you.Katrine at LI (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have united the sections on funding. We shall wait and see if any editors beside yourself feel that your suggestions are likely to be improvements. Hunc (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I agree that there are potential NPOV issues, and I have amended the section along those lines and rewrote a paragraph to avoid use of primary sources. There's also some vaguely promotional content (do we need to list every program of the Institute?) that I might also try to ameliorate later this week. For now, closing the request; Katrine at LI you are free to open another if you want to alter, amend, or remove remaining content or content that I add in my subsequent edits. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.

Hello. I work for Legatum Institute; Katrine who previously requested edits to this article is no longer working at the Institute. I would like to request the following two changes to the article:

1. Removal of the descriptive "pro-Brexit" from the first sentence. While the Institute maintains that it is neutral on issues like Brexit, it can accept that media and the public categorise it as pro-Brexit. Nevertheless, it is not a primary descriptor of the organisation and should not be the first words of its encyclopedic entry.
2. Removal of the 4th paragraph of the "History" section. Based on WP:COATRACK, the controversy about Chandler's disproven allegations of 'links with Russia' belongs exclusively on Chandler's page (where it is already); it does not belong in the article about the Institute. If this content is to remain in the article, it should include the resolution of the investigation as sourced by:
   • https://www.intelligenceonline.com/corporate-intelligence/2021/06/11/businessman-christopher-chandler-pins-donald-berlin-the-private-investigator-who-accused-him-of-russian-ties,109672573-art
     
   • https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-07-22/debates/5B97EE49-C25D-46C2-B5F5-A25FDF80E306/SummerAdjournment#contribution-D97285C2-BAC1-4DFD-83DE-3B1D23F8BCF2.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. JH at LI (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Charity Commission had to tell LI to remove a highly political document from its website -- pushing for a particularly hard Brexit. The assertion of "neutrality" isn't exactly plausible... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Before and after the Brexit referendum, the Institute published significantly on a wide range of topics unrelated to Brexit. Any stance the Institute did or did not take on one issue in 2020 should not be its primary descriptive in an encyclopedic entry; Brexit is over and it was (and is) not a defining focus of the Institute. As such, I am restating my request to remove the "pro-Brexit" description from the first sentence of the article. JH at LI (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The characterisation clearly belongs in the lead, but whether it belongs in the opening sentence is much more questionable per MOS:FIRST. Sentence four is much better written and a better place to put this. I don't see a problem with the 4th paragraph of the history section, but we should cut the 5th paragraph unless there's better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, Many thanks for your input and thoughts. As you suggest, the removal of the pro-Brexit descriptive from the opening sentence would be appropriate. My COI keeps me from making this change and I would appreciate your help on that matter, particularly since the Institute has not published on issues relating to Brexit since Shanker Singham left the Institute in 2018.

The (unsubstantiated) allegations against Christopher Chandler are fully detailed in his article and therefore do not need to be restated on the Institute's page, as per WP:COATRACK. I agree that the fifth paragraph should be removed as well, since the sourcing is bad and the information is outdated. Could you please make these changes as well?

With thanks, JH at LI (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting a few more days for further comments, but unless there are clear objections I will change the opening sentence and delete the 5th paragraph of the history section. I won't touch the 4th paragraph of the history section for now: the Guardian reference seems to me to make this not just a WP:COATRACK situation. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jonathan A Jones, for your help with this. I'd like to continue the discussion about the inclusion of the Christopher Chandler controversy in this article. Given that the claims have now been shown in court to have been false and disproven (a statement was read last week in the High Court), as covered by numerous reputable sources including The Guardian and BBC, does it really warrant mention on the Institute's page? The fallacious allegations and related court battles are described in full detail in Chandler's article. Inclusion in the Institute's article is a clear attempt to insert malicious content and pivot readers away from encyclopedic information about the Institute. Again, thank you for your continued help and your reconsideration of this matter. JH at LI (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that the Guardian reporting specifically mentions the Legatum Institute links I think it only strengthens the case for inclusion. I'm going to close this edit request now as answered. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan A Jones, sorry for the delay. Thanks for taking another look at this. You mentioned that the Guardian article is what makes the Chandler story relevant to the Institute's Wikipedia page, but it seems that the connection there is used more as an identifier than to reveal any true relevance. Can you indicate what substantial link the Guardian covered that would warrant the inclusion of Chandler's controversy on this page? The current paragraph claims that the "The Institute has been subject to controversy by way of Chandler", but the rest of the paragraph fails to really demonstrate the impact or relevance of said controversy, instead focusing on Chandler's actions and the eventual disproval of the claims.

If you still feel there is some relevance to the Institute's history here, I have some concerns about the wording of the current paragraph - it just doesn't grammatically scan as well as it might do - and wonder if you would be happy to remove some of the inconsequential details and amend the paragraph to read as follows:

"The Institute has been subject to controversy by way of Chandler, who in 2018 was accused of links to Russian intelligence by Bob Seeley, a Conservative MP.^[1] In 2022, Chris Bryant, who joined Seeley in making the accusations, conceded that the claims about Chandler had subsequently been disproved.^[2]

Thanks again for your help with this. JH at LI (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious to know -- what was the outcome of Chandler's lawsuit against Berlin?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer but looks to me like a score draw. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am suggesting the following additions and changes to the article to bring it up to date and include recent activities and programming. I attempted to add some of these non-controversial updates on my own, as Wikipedia policies allow, but a different editor requested that the request be made here.

• Changing the content of the Global People Movements Programme section to reflect additional activity; my suggested language:

The Institute also runs the Global People Movements programme, which works to develop solutions to address the largest movement of forcibly displaced people since the Second World War.^[1] In 2022, the Institute's CEO led a cross-party campaign for the extension of the right to work to asylum seekers in the UK in a bid to amend the Government's nationality and borders legislation. The campaign was backed by 65 Conservative politicians.^[2]

• Adding the Transitions Forum to the Historic programmes section; my suggested language:

Between 2014-2016, the Institute hosted the Transitions Forum which focused on radical political and economic change in societies going from authoritarian to democratic regimes. The Institute published reports and essays on combatting Russian disinformation,^[3] and hosted events with Russian opposition leaders such as Garry Kasparov, Leonid Volkov (politician), and Nataliya Gumenyuk.

Thank you. JH at LI (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi JH at LI, a couple of things: could you specify which text currently in the article you would remove or change to your proposed solutions? Additionally, do you have references for the events involving Kasparov, Volkov and Gumenyuk? Third, what specifically do you mean by "works to develop solutions" in your proposed edit? This sounds like corporate promotional-speak without much substance. Clarifying specific details or programs would be more helpful. I am marking this request as addressed; to re-open it after you provide additional information, remove the "|A" in the {{request edit}} template above. Best, Spencer^T•C 23:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good morning,

A few days ago I reviewed the article and made a change because this foundation is no longer operating as a foundation with multiple donors, but rather as a company with a single financial sponsor. I made this edit, but it was reverted on the grounds that the sources were not considered reliable.

However, I believe we are not fully acknowledging that the foundation has effectively become a company, and therefore the funding of this article’s subject — the Prosperity Institute — is now based solely on corporate funding. In my edit, I also specified which company this was and provided the corresponding sources.

That said, I am open to discussion, and that is why I am raising this here instead of insisting through repeated edits. I am confident we can reach a consensus on how best to reflect this situation in the article.

Best regards, CarlesFort (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not complicated: you just need to find some reliable secondary sources supporting your proposed edits. Until you do that there's not a lot to discuss. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

hey made a pretty big change didnt want to clutter the log

In terms of structure I summarized the key facts before the detailed sections so we can start off with a nicer high level understanding; I created a standalone prosperity index section because afte some digging this really is one of their more important actions; I seperated historic programmes with current ones to the best of what I could find, and I also added a see also section.

I added a bunch of content (as mentioned, prosperity index), their work being used by DWP for social metrics, some context around the defamation which has as of 2024 vindicated the funder, expanded on their journalism award boris j quotes etc. anything I could dig up.

You'll notice I made some editorial decisions around NPOV as I considered quite a bit of this article to not really follow NPOV. Up for debate on this if you like, I removed active language like pushing certain visions if not cited, I removed the guilt-by-association donation framing where a minor donation was used to characterise the institute as a whole. I retained the substantiated criticism around them (transparency rating E, charity commission issues).

Regarding the corporate status change CarlesFort mentioned, I also updated that

All changes are sourced (I hope) ~2026-57549-2 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

ah just noticed I didn't do this from main account

oh well enjoy the free drive by article expansion lmao ~2026-57549-2 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you sign into your main account and post a message here relating yourself to this temp account. This page has faced edits of concern before and it may be better for us to have the context of the user which we're dealing with.

While doing the change all at once may avoid "clutter[ing] the log", it does make it much harder to evaluate the individual changes. The new edit has at the very least some technical problems (the same page linked multiple times in a sentence; items linked in the See Also section that were already linked in the article) as well as sourcing concerns (boastful material being sourced to a press release), but it will take more time to judge the various alterations. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)