![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to be a one sided description of what Open Europe does. Dones't give a neutral description.
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)
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)
I have placed a draft re-write at User:Sceptic/Open Europe draft. Any thoughts? Sceptic 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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.” [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
"
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to be a one sided description of what Open Europe does. Dones't give a neutral description.
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)
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)
I have placed a draft re-write at User:Sceptic/Open Europe draft. Any thoughts? Sceptic 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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.” [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
"
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)