Talk:Open Europe

Untitled

Seems to be a one sided description of what Open Europe does. Dones't give a neutral description.

Agree. Reads like a Party Political Broadcast. --Red King 22:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at cleaning it up a little, but I don't know if much can be done. I can't find much information about the group, other than what's on their own website. Liam Plested 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This has clearly been written by somebody at Open Europe. posted at13:19, 12 July 2006 by user:Sharkinfested (Talk | contribs) per history

I've tagged it NPOV and Article for Deletion. It is irredeemable. --Red King 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has this page been deleted again?

This organisation is a reputable think-tank (far more so than some of the one-man-and-his-dog outfits which have articles on wiki). See[1] and Stockholm network. So why has it been deleted? If it is NPOV surely it can be edited accordingly? Sceptic 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was apparently deleted as re-created text according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Europe. If you think it should be re-created, bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. There are a few things that should change with the article before re-creating, such as removing all of the external links that are peppered throughout the article—select a few important, relevant ones and put them at the end of the article under sections "External links" and "References", where appropriate; another thing the article needs is references from outside sources, not just publications by the organization. The Guardian link is good, but it looks like it might just be in something like a business directory; events or actions covered by newspapers and magazines would be good. —Centrx→talk • 14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will look at deletion review page. The Guardian link is a Special Report, not a directory: "In this special report we profile Britain's leading thinktanks and explain what they are up to." [2]. How can I edit the article while it is still deleted? Sceptic 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You could copy and revise a draft at User:Sceptic/Open Europe draft; make sure there is a link to it here if you use a different name. —Centrx→talk • 17:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request to undelete it, but don't know how to access the deleted article to edit it. Sceptic 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Open Europe is exactly the sort of body that should be listed here given its important role in UK politics. Just look in any newspaper and it is always being quoted. Alexuk 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First attempt at a NPOV re-write

I have placed a draft re-write at User:Sceptic/Open Europe draft. Any thoughts? Sceptic 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Europe (second nomination)

The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

'Independent' polling - dubious

I have added a 'dubious' tag to the claim that Open Europe polling is independent. When a Telegraph journalist can say “I hate to say this, because I know and like the Open Europe people, but I think the bulk of their poll is not that useful, because the wording of their questions was not neutral enough.”

For example, their question to the Irish voters on a sceond referendum was loaded with a de-facto poll on the Irish Government "would be less likely to vote for Cowen and his party in an Irish general election if he decided to re-run the referendum". I suspect that the 'no's included many people who couldn't be any less likely to vote for him. Open Europe must have known this. --Red King (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that is true of many polls, including widely cited and respectable ones. I don't see how Open Europe's polls would be much different. Besides, the other questions in the Irish poll that you mention were straightforward, there was nothing suspicious about the questions. One gets the impression that you see everything in too critical light because you disagree with their agenda. --Osvaldi (talk 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Removal of NPOV

Wikipedia's guidelines for how neutrality can be achieved says that "Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions." As this entry cites a large number of sorces, which take a very different view of the organisation, it seems as if the NPOV flag should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBMoqvist (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Agreed, I have removed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chester2012 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I deleted the reference to the Economist Charlemagne blog post from March 2010, as the author of that post has since then been on record several times to say that that particular description of Open Europe no longer is applicable. For example here http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2012/rp_096_km-6277.pdf here https://twitter.com/DSORennie/status/424141172295360512 and here https://twitter.com/DSORennie/status/424157403052265472. It's therefore misleading and against Wikipedia's guidelines to present this as current criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielster2014 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to the recent updates. However, I think that it is still relevant to mention past criticisms in the context of more recent changes, so will reinstate an updated text. This kind of background information is potentially very useful to readers. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to clean up the criticism section. However, David Rennie seems to say in his intervention on 15 Jan 2014 that Open Europe is now "very different" when compared to March 2010, acknowledging that the description no longer captures the organization. Also, the Economist magazine has itself referred to Open Europe as a "think tank" on several occasions with no qualifying remarks, see the 4 January 2014 edition, for example. Therefore, it seems odd to include a criticism from March 2010 for the first time in early 2014, with reference to background for readers, when numerous accounts show the description is no longer applicable. Please see Wikipedia guidelines. I have deleted Berliner1970 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have kept the Economist Charlemagne reference in relation to the Open Europe regulation study, as this relates to a study still being cited. To avoid the discussion here to be predicated on ideological belief, this is a far more appropriate place for that reference to the criticism in question Berliner1970 (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rennie also says "it remains as much a campaign group as a thinktank" which seems notable. I'm not sure which wikipedia guideline you are referring to that says we only include the most recent or up-to-date discussion of a topic. In fact there is a guideline that says exactly the opposite, WP:RECENT. It is very valuable context for readers to be able to see the ideological evolution of an organisation over time, especially as they aren't likely to find that easily in current media reports. As long as it is made clear that the criticism is from a few years ago, and the author has revised his opinions since, it is entirely relevant to the article. We should not white wash the article of past criticism, or course making sure that its coverage is proportional and reflective of the current state of WP:Reliable sources. I don't think this article could be accused of being overly negative as it stands. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The ideological evolution seems captured by the three separate sources that outline various forms of criticism, which already is a large number of sources for criticism for this type of entry, and consistent with a "broad spectrum of POVs and opinions" under WP:NPOV The emphasis on the "campaign group" reference and excessive citation seem to be a case of WP:UNDUE. As noted, also the Economist itself refers to Open Europe as a think-tank, as does the overwhelming share - if not all - of media reports covering Open Europe, as you also allude to. Rennie has also in 2014 furthered distanced himself from the 2012 reference you cite.Berliner1970 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The other critical sources don't discuss whether it is a think tank or not, so they aren't relevant to that point. Having one source discussing the distinction is not excessive, especially as it was written in a prominent source by a noted and informed commentator. We can certainly note that the magazine itself often calls OE a think tank, and that Rennie has recently revised his opinions somewhat. I would be interested to see Rennie's further distancing himself from the 2012 comments if you could provide that. This article is still far from a comprehensive encyclopedia article and needs filling in with further discussion of the organisation. Cutting out one of the only serious third party discussions we have of its role and nature is regressive. Feel free to include other third party sources discussing the issue if you don't think the discussion is balanced. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is relevant to include the 2010 Charlemagne Blog post by Rennie. However, it is equally as important to document the evolution of opinion: including the 2012 CER paper, and his most recent comments on Twitter. Because he has distanced himself from the 2010 blog, however, does not mean that it should not not be in the article. I have, therefore, arranged what he's said in chronological order. Interesting to point out that several other journalists including from the Sunday Times and Telegraph contributed to the twitter discussion - and I agree that third party discussion should feature. Equally, just as important to note that the same Blog being contended here, Charlemagne, makes more recent references to the organisation in November 2013. I have added the links. A final point with regard to undue weight (WP:NPO) ,the 2010 blog was quoted extensively twice (once in the 'Reception' section, and then again separately under the 'Research'.) It was not clear in the first mention of the blog, that it was the same article which had a whole subsequent paragraph devoted to it below. To clean it up, I have added both criticisms of OE from the 2010 blog in the same section under 'Reception' that discussed the blog at length. Please ensure WP:NPO, WP:RSUWV. This is not about the viewpoint of a few editors, but about a fair and neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald1000 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have a couple of concerns.

1) twitter is generally discouraged as a source for wikipedia. Please see WP:TWITTER. I think in this case it could be considered acceptable, as Rennie is discussing his own opinion, and I suppose we are reasonably confident that it is in fact his twitter account? It isn't verified though. I would actually be in favour of dropping the ref though, as it seems rather overkill since we already have a much better source saying much the same thing (CER paper).

2) I think that the discussion of the report should go back into the original section. As a general rule wikipedia encourages a more "holistic" approach to articles in which topics are discussed "as a whole" and not broken up into POV sections if possible. Please see WP:STRUCTURE, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I think it therefore makes sense to keep all discussion of that report together. I don't think it is undue weight to use the same blog on two separate occasions, as he is discussing two separate issues, and is a prominent voice in the field. Rather than cutting it, we should find other sources discussing this issue or others to ensure due weight is given.

3) There is a some original research creeping in here: "[52]The Economist refers to Open Europe as a “think tank” in every reference to the organisation in 2013 and 2014.[49][53][54] This includes a November 2013 reference to Open Europe in the magazine's Charlemagne blog as the "London-based think-tank." Nowhere do the citations actually say "every reference" in the Economist in 2013/14 is as such. They just refer to it as a think tank. The statement in the article is thus unsupported and counts as original research or synthesis. May seem like nitpicking, but this is one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is there so much about the shifting opinions of Rennie to this organisation? Is Rennie`s opinion the only one that counts? Given he has it seems gone full circle in his views I propose we delete the whole Rennie section and save people the bother of reading it on what is already a long entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.112 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Rennie has changed opinions is just as potentially interesting as if he had held them fast. He has some valid criticisms of the group's work, and has commented specifically on the nature of the group. He was the Economist's correspondent in Brussels for several years, which makes him very qualified to comment on this topic. Cutting his contribution would leave this article as basically just a OE love fest, misrepresenting the reliable sources on this topic. This is not a long entry. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no point in putting disowned critisism on the entry just for the sake ot it, perhaps his current view is more relevant? After all balancing arguments is not always right ~ would you include a justification of slavery for the sake of balance? Or an argument that the earth balances on turtles? If this Rennie is interesting, rather than recite his personal journey towards understanding that critisism of the EU is valid I would just have his current view ~ perhaps the rest should be in an entry to do with him and his views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.31.112 (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear: Rennie has not "disowned" the criticism. He has said that Open Europe has changed since he wrote the piece, not that he has changed his opinions. And he hasn't changed his discussion of the report on regulation at all. So the bit on regulation is as valid now as it was then. His change of opinion is interesting because it indicates a possible change in direction by Open Europe, not Rennie. Neither is he a fringe figure, or proposing a crank theory such as those that you cite. He is a well known and respected journalist who writes for for one the most notable publications writing about EU affairs. That's not to say he is necessarily "right," or unbiased but he is a textbook case of the type of source wikipedia wants to include. Not only that, The Economist is more likely than most publications to be receptive and positive to Open Europe's ideas, so to say that is somehow an example of false balance is a bit ridiculous IMO. As I've said before, if you're worried that Rennie is given undue attention, add other figures' opinions rather than white washing this bit of criticism out of the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The constant desire to include one reference from the Economist and delete all balancing comment from the same author is very tiring and amounts to Vandalism. If you object to the more recent comments from Rennie, lets remove his earlier ones as well? Why the need to have a onesided acount of this orgnisation based on one journalists view?Baskaville

There is a balancing comment already. I laid out my points above, but you just couldn't be bothered to reply. Look, there's a way that these things are done. When two people disagree on content they are supposed to discuss the issue until it is resolved. You can't just declare that you think it's been resolved and proceed on that basis. I gave you several substantive, policy based reasons why I wanted to alter your text, but since you didn't even reply I assumed that you had conceded the point and removed the disputed text. In case you missed it, I'll repost it for you:

"

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have a couple of concerns.

1) twitter is generally discouraged as a source for wikipedia. Please see WP:TWITTER. I think in this case it could be considered acceptable, as Rennie is discussing his own opinion, and I suppose we are reasonably confident that it is in fact his twitter account? It isn't verified though. I would actually be in favour of dropping the ref though, as it seems rather overkill since we already have a much better source saying much the same thing (CER paper).

2) I think that the discussion of the report should go back into the original section. As a general rule wikipedia encourages a more "holistic" approach to articles in which topics are discussed "as a whole" and not broken up into POV sections if possible. Please see WP:STRUCTURE, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I think it therefore makes sense to keep all discussion of that report together. I don't think it is undue weight to use the same blog on two separate occasions, as he is discussing two separate issues, and is a prominent voice in the field. Rather than cutting it, we should find other sources discussing this issue or others to ensure due weight is given.

3) There is a some original research creeping in here: "[52]The Economist refers to Open Europe as a “think tank” in every reference to the organisation in 2013 and 2014.[49][53][54] This includes a November 2013 reference to Open Europe in the magazine's Charlemagne blog as the "London-based think-tank." Nowhere do the citations actually say "every reference" in the Economist in 2013/14 is as such. They just refer to it as a think tank. The statement in the article is thus unsupported and counts as original research or synthesis. May seem like nitpicking, but this is one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)" Peregrine981 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

advocacy group

Open Europe is frequently referred to as an a "pressure group" or "advocacy group" in the press. See for example for pressure group: [[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. We should reflect what the sources call it.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, for better or worse, Open Europe seems to draw hundreds of media mentions and the overwhelming majority of those refer to it as "think-tank". I don't think 12 references to it being labelled differently, over such a long time period, justifies the "advocacy group" label at such a prominent place in the entry. The issue is also comprehebnsively dealt with in "reception". Looking back at this discussion, it does seem like you simply don't agree with the group, which is fine, but for the purpose of creating an entry that reflects the current work and position of Open Europe, I don't think your last few edits are particularly helpful. It would be much better to try to clean up and expand positions / publications which would give the reader a more accurate flavour - and chance to makwe up her/his own mind - than the ideological slinging match taking place on the talk page at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4EU2010 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Who are you? Are you the same editor as has been editing under anonymous IP addresses, or are you a new editor? It would help the discussion if you could pick an identity and stick to it, both for accountability's sake, and coherence. Also, the level of projection and "pot calling the kettle black" in the last posting is hilarious. Look through my edits, and I've added quite a number of sources, both pro and con over the last few days. I've also taken the time to clean up the citations, formatting and structure of the article. So I'd appreciate if you wouldn't assume that I'm somehow ideologically committed to slanting the article, especially for someone who seems to be committed to removing or contextualising criticism as much as possible, but is not similarly concerned about praise. What you call "an ideological slinging match" is simply a reasoned discussion about what should and should not be included. If it starts to get off topic then I will agree with you. Until then you're just trying to avoid discussion and accountability.

The 12 citations are not the only ones that exist, they are just a sampling of what is out there. Rennie himself says it is still "as much" an advocacy group as a think tank. What is the magical number at which you would say that we can include their description in the article? It isn't disparaging to say it is an advocacy group, it just means that they have an opinion and are doing what they can to advance their position. That is true of many think tanks. They admit it themselves on their mission statement. What's the problem? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

let's talk

@Baskaville: Please let's talk about our disagreement on the talk page rather than through edit summaries. We can't come to a conclusion if we don't talk. Discussion is a normal part of the evolution of an article, and hopefully we can use it to come to a better result, satisfactory to both of us. I've laid out my points above, but seeing no response I will try to respond to your edit summaries at least.

You say "Without the following conversation the Economist refoerence is outdated, misleading and biased"[15] - We do include a statement from Rennie qualifying his earlier statement already. I see no point in duplicating his qualification, especially as it is sourced from Twitter which is specifically discouraged if possible (See WP:TWITTER). The published paper is a much better source than a tweet, and the two say basically the same thing. In addition, you are the one complaining that we pay too much attention to Rennie's blog, yet you want to add yet more detail about it. Seems contradictory.

You say "Deleted a duplicate entery to a spurious blog - should be in reception (as it is) not positions."[16] Why is it spurious? Spurious implies that is somehow fraudulent or incorrect. But Rennie stands by the post in large part. He simply says that under the new director Open Europe has changed. I have addressed why we should move discussion of the report itself to the "positions" section above (twice). Please respond on that basis rather than just repeating your original position. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is spurious to include it as the author himself writes how he has changed his view on the EU and on critisism of the EU. Just trying to include his earlier comments, as you want to do, would be highly misleading. The fact is these ideas are not those the writer takes now and were only ever in a blog post. I think it is more accurate to have his most recent comment, or the current view of the blog. I propose putting all of Rennie's comments in a separate box so his evolving views can be seen as a whole? That said I am not convinced giving such prominence to one blog post given the mountain of coverage Open Europe gets in the print media is correct. Please stop replacing these pieces it betrays a certain bias and infatuation in your editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.31.99 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Is this the same editor that I have been talking to all along? It'd be nice to know. I'd also like to note the gratuitous pot shot at my integrity. Please try to stick to the issue, not the editor.

Rennie, to my knowledge, has not "changed his view on the EU and on critisism of the EU". He has said that Open Europe has changed, not the other way around (at least in this context). We make it quite clear that Rennie has revised his opinion of Open Europe, using the CER paper. No one is arguing for the removal of that section. So, I don't see how it is "misleading" to say that he used to think X, but has now revised his opinion to Y, in light of Z. The twitter quotes are largely superfluous to what he says in the report, so constituted undue emphasis both on Rennie, and on this blog post, which you have just said you are worried about. Putting everything to do with Rennie in its own box doesn't make sense for the logicial flow of the article, and contradicts wiki policy as I've argued above.Peregrine981 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking my account - good way to end a discussion. Now I have managed to reopen one I have corrected your footnoted so that it is clear you are multiple citing the same blog entry and are keen to delete any balancing opinion. Reading the lond discusions on this subject and your multiple reversions I sincerely doubt your impartiality. AyreSmith1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayresmith1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record I never requested a block of your account. I requested a semi-protect of the page so that anonymous users couldn't keep reverting the page without discussion. Take up your block with the admins. They know the policies better than me. Anyone who looks at the article history or this talk page can make up their mind who was willing to engage and compromise. I'm more than happy to discuss substance, but am tired of the petty edit wars. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, pointing out that it self describes as economically and socially liberal, as others may not agree with that description, and I've also referenced that one of the co-directors is a special advisor to the UK Government on Brexit while the other has no work history other than with Open Europe. I've concerns that all published articles by Open Europe are Eurosceptic and pro-Brexit while it's own website and this article deny that stance and claim a neutral or pro EU position. 155.136.158.8 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK

An important part of WP:NPOV policy is avoiding WP:PEACOCK language ("the best of the best of the best", "widely recognized", 'keen', 'ardent', numerous', etc.) The information must speak for itself. 'The bestest' is most often 'an opinion', and as such it must be clearly attributed to the opinion holder and is admitted into a wikipedia article only if the opinion holder is an independent expert on the issue (i.e., "we are the best" is a no-go). In particular, one cannot give a reference to 4-17 publications that mention a fact and then write in wikipedia "it is widely <bla-bla about this fact>". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal Status and Slogan

I have changed the Status for Open Europe to "Private company" from the previously listed "Non-profit", as a search of the the Companies House database [17], and Open Europe's Terms & Conditions page [18] confirm the organisation is a Private company limited by guarantee without share capital, not a Non-profit. Also the slogan "The Status Quo is Not an Option" under the Open Europe logo was removed - this text is nowhere to be found on the Open Europe website as a slogan for the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurofederalistlondon (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Page/Supporters/en/LIVE

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)