Talk:Eurasia Group

Suggestion: condense number of names

Why is there such a large listing of names for this article? I think it was a good idea to start an article about the Eurasia Group, but I would suggest that the number of names be condensed so it focuses on more interesting information. The article should not look like a phone book, and all those names can be found on the site's website. (Tvwatcher 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Agreed... the article seems to have been written or edited by someone who works for the group & it falls fairly clearly afoul of WP:VANITY. I'm deleting the names. Mikker ^(...) 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the names for people who aren't notable in and of themselves from the "History" section of the article. Also, we don't need to know exactly when the notables added to their consulting board were added. Could someone else look that over and see if the same approach would work to the other sections of the article? --loupgarous (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ad Copy

Maybe the body of the article is better, but the lede is ad copy. jae (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the claim that the company employees 150 full-time people seems unlikely given that Eurasia Group's own website lists only around 90, including junior analysts and researchers, so unless they have 70 back-office admin staff and interns, 150 full-time seems a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:EAC:FC00:3879:AF93:3C8E:3222 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I checked archived versions of the (circa 2010) references cited, and there's nothing about staff numbers. Nor on their website, nor elsewhere online that I can see. So off it comes up until a WP:RS can be found to verify. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's debatable whether Eurasia Group is notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Perhaps if more WP:RS can be found to document what it is and what it does, but right now the sourcing is thin.

Interesting development, possibly - (we shouldn't act on this yet, according to WP:NOTNEWS): Eurasia Group's founder Ian Bremmer is in a controversy over having posted a false quote from Donald Trump. Discussion in WP:RS such as Jonathan Turley's blog in which he comments

"Bremmer peached “professional studies” at NYU and is the founder of the Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm. For some reason, Bremmer decided to post a false quote from Trump: “Kim Jong Un is smarter and would make a better President than Sleepy Joe Biden.”"

might help with the lack of sources establishing notability.

Does anyone else think we ought to discuss whether this article meets the criteria in WP:AFD? Are there more WP:RS independent of Eurasia Group's principals and employees? loupgarous (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly written as an advert

The entire article reads too much like an advert. After looking through the article's history, several users, such as User talk:Hsieh@eurasiagroup.net ,player a prominent role in writing the current article. They are clearly related to the group and so whether their writing was unbiased should be put into question. Overall, I feel like the article should be entirely rewritten, especially since before this addition of mine it already had the "neutrality questiobed" and "lacks verification" templates. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Severe COI Issues

I have made a fuller note of this on the talk page for CEO Ian Bremmer, which shows a similar pattern of edits by accounts very likely connected to the subjects (Bremmer, his companies, and his books). A quick look for this page specifically reveals two notable examples from this year alone, both of which with names that are very easy to connect to Eurasia Group:

• Edits by User:Brianharper89, mostly later undone
• Edits by User:Shenning18, after the above edits were replaced

I am going to proceed to delete large portions of text I consider frivolous or suspect, and will refer to this section in justification. It is apparent that Eurasia Group has been concertedly attempting to treat its Wikipedia pages like an advertisement for several years, and that obviously cannot go on. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Pinging @Vfrickey, The Mighty Glen, and Openlydialectic:, because I noticed your discussions above about these issues and related concerns about notability. I am going to initiate AfD discussions for Bremmer's books (have done so already for The J Curve (book), which, like this page, are very likely written mainly by associates of Eurasia Group.

@WhinyTheYounger: As discussed on our talk pages, I am a Eurasia Group employee following up on some of the issues outlined above. Once again, my sincere thanks for the incredibly useful information you provided on Wikipedia's COI policies and what my colleagues and I need to do to ensure adherence going forward.

After reviewing the materials you directed me toward, I was hoping to propose some additions to Eurasia Group's page:

• In the introduction, we'd like add that Eurasia Group has an office in Brasilia.
• Also in the introduction, we think it's worth mentioning that the firm has been credited with creating Wall Street's first global political risk index.
• Adding a brief history section to explain what the firm's work entails. I created a Sandbox draft for this section, and per our dialogue, emphasized outside sources. As with all of this, any feedback is greatly appreciated.
• Updating the Partnerships section to cover "Partnerships, Acquisitions, and Advisors." The current text already mentions Intellibridge, which was an acquisition as opposed to a partnership. And while I understand that an exhaustive list of board members/advisors is not appropriate, several of our senior advisors held significant roles in their national governments and have their own Wikipedia pages that reflect the noteworthy nature of their accomplishments. I drafted proposed text to follow what's currently in the Partnerships section; this is also available in the Sandbox draft. Once again, any help is appreciated.

Because of my COI, I understand that I cannot directly edit this article. Thank you again! --Brianharper89 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Brianharper89: Thanks for being willing to work with the community! FYI, in the future, you can make new requests a separate section (click "new section" at the top), which makes navigating through them easier later on. Also, another possibly useful reference I forgot to mention earlier is this list of articles about companies "good"-rated articles (though some of them may need updating; it's an ongoing process...). As for your suggestions:

•  Done add that Eurasia Group has an office in Brasilia
•  Not done mentioning that the firm has been credited with creating Wall Street's first global political risk index - I tried to do some quick Googling myself, but I was unable to find an independent source saying as much (feel free to point me to one I might have missed). The Concordia page is not independent coverage as it is Bremmer's Leadership Council bio. It might be helpful to explain what is meant by Wall Street's first GPRI, specifically.
•  Done Adding a brief history section
•  Partly done Updating the Partnerships section to cover "Partnerships, Acquisitions, and Advisors."
  • N Advisory positions are usually avoided because they rarely represent substantive associations with the company in question (unless otherwise mentioned in independent sources that specifically focus on their advisor relationship with said company), and, moreover, that information is readily available on your website itself. Even paid employees/principals are generally considered trivial in terms of notability. To quote WP:CORPDEPTH: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO.
  • Y I did add the partnerships, although the last two sources are dubiously independent, personally I see no issue keeping them for the sake of completeness.

Hi, @WhinyTheYounger: Thanks for addressing and providing clarifications on the points above. Your point on the GPRI makes sense. Given that the index is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for political risk, it seems relevant to include in some fashion. Would the following make sense? "In 2001, Eurasia Group established the Global Political Risk Index, a tool assigning a quantitative score determining a country’s stability based on political, social, economic, and security factors."

Thanks again! Brianharper89 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Key People

My name is Brian Harper, and I'm a Eurasia Group employee. I wanted to point out that Robert Johnston is no longer Eurasia Group's CEO; Maziar Minovi is (see the timeline on this page and this Bloomberg profile). Because of my conflict of interest, I understand I cannot edit the Key People section of this page to reflect this information but wanted to share it in the hopes someone else might. Thank you! --Brianharper89 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition to History Section

My name is Brian Harper, and I'm a Eurasia Group employee. I wanted to suggest an addition to the History section of the page, following the sentence that ends "... in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic." Perhaps something akin to the following: "Released two days before the storming of the United States Capitol, the firm's 2021 report listed US political divisions and perceptions of Joe Biden's illegitimacy as president of the United States as the year's top risk."

Because of my conflict of interest, I understand I cannot edit this page but wanted to share this information with the hope someone else might. Thank you! --Brianharper89 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brian, sorry this slipped through the cracks. If you're still interested in this content being added, I'll take a look. For reference, you can use the {{Request edit}} template (just stick it at the top of a post) and it will be listed on a centralized list, so it's more likely to been seen. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References