Jump to content

Talk:ResPublica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

An editor has added the {{multiple issues|...|notability=}} tag to this article. I plan to assist in addressing any concerns which that editor has, both by accepting his invitation to join discussion here on this Talk page and, of course, by doing what I can to bring the article up to Wikipedia's high standards.

On the question of the think tank ResPublica's notability, I would support ResPublica's case.

But who am I to suggest so? The case may be better put by these other bodies (all mentioned in the article or its direct links):

  • HARDTalk
  • The Guardian newspaper
  • the 5 MPs on the think tank's advisory board
  • the PM
  • the BBC
  • FoxNews
  • the Co-operative movement
  • a conference for public servants (& presumably their managers)

Trafford09 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that most of the artials links are more about Phillip Blond than about ResPublica, there does not appear to be much significant coverage about.
The only two ref's quoted are (excluding own site) :
then the External links
Also self published - I have removed the link. Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I also found this from the Guardian newspaper - not exactly glowing ?
Given that I have found nothing that demonstrates notability - what have I missed ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What else have I missed?", you ask. Well, apart from the obvious red herrings of David Cameron taking some time out to attend and speak at ResPublica's launch - oh, and the 5 MPs on ResPublica's advisory board, I think you've established non-notability pretty well.

These national newspapers have mentioned ResPublica:

  • Daily Mail article, 12/06/10, referring inter alia to ResPublica
  • Fox News article, 15/06/10, referring inter alia to ResPublica
  • FT article, 28/05/10, contains an "Update" paragraph quoting ResPublica opinion.

Trafford09 (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will deal with each :
1. The Daily Mail - this is an article about Ming Campbell with only a passing ref to ResPublica.
2. Fox News - article in which Phillip Blond is listed as "director of the U.K. think tank ResPublica - no more mentions of ResPublica
3. FT Blog - post about "Why Robert Peston may be wrong on the housing market" ResPublica only ref'ed as a passing thourght in a 2 line Update.
None of this gets close to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" detailed in the WP:GNG (FYI : ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - also from WP:GNG) Codf1977 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry missed the bit about "obvious red herrings of David Cameron taking some time out to attend and speak at ResPublica's launch - oh, and the 5 MPs on ResPublica's advisory board" - all of that it is a claim of inherited notability. Codf1977 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although notability is not inherited, surely this is not a normal inheritance. If David Beckham bought a hotel, that hotel would not become notable. But in this case, we're talking about a UK political think tank, and on its advisory board sits Oliver Letwin, who's the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Chairman of the Conservative Research Department and Chairman of the Conservative Party's Policy Review, and sits on Cabinet meetings. That's kinda related to the article's subject. --Trafford09 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion?

[edit]

If you are reading this Talk page, you may also be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResPublica. --Trafford09 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

An editor has added the {{multiple issues|...|advert=}} tag to this article, suggesting that
'It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.'.

I plan to assist in addressing any such concerns that editors may have, both by discussion here on this Talk page and, of course, by doing what I can to bring the article up to Wikipedia's high standards.

I've started by toning down some of the wording, taking care to use words like 'aims to', so as not to take the organisation's website simply at face value.

The lead section used to refer to 'leading' think tank - a quote from the BBC HARDtalk presenter. The word 'leading' has been removed (although, to measure up to Wikipedia's notability requirements, the external reference has been left as a reliable source).

I next plan to include some reference to this 'sketch' from the Guardian. It is uncomplimentary towards ResPublica - perhaps Respublica were over-brave in inviting Simon Hoggart, from a left-leaning newspaper, to the launch of a centre-right think tank.

Of course, any other editor can assist in toning down the article. --Trafford09 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as a sign of my intended neutrality (I have no wp:COI), you may wish to see a message I left on another editor's talk page, bringing wp:NOTADVERT and wp:NPOV to their attention, re this article. --Trafford09 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HARDtalk

[edit]

Ever since I created the article on 15 June 2010, the lead section has contained the line:
          ResPublica's director, Phillip Blond, has been the main guest on programmes such as HARDtalk.

The line had a Cite to video of the interview on the BBC website, here.

On 5 July 2010, User:Codf1977 deleted this line and Cite here, with the edit summary "What TV programs the director has been on is a matter for his article, not here.".

Personally, I believe that the line and Cite should stay, for the reasons I give below. However, I don't wish to start an wp:edit war, so I've created this section here on the Talk page, for interested parties to discuss the issue & hopefully reach some consensus.

Arguments for including HARDtalk

[edit]
  • [1] The 24-minute TV program is on HARDtalk, which is a political program.
  • [2] The program clip, when you click on the link (above), clearly highlights (even before you play the clip):

          "HARDtalk
           Phillip Blond, Director of ResPublica"

Thus, at worst, the clip relates to both the person AND the organisation.
  • [3] 5'22" into the clip, the HARDtalk presenter Stephen Sackur refers to the sole interviewee as "director of a leading think tank".
This surely is germane to the organisation, not just the person.
  • [4] At 5 points in the interview, when Blond is speaking, the caption 'Phillip Blond, Director of ResPublica' appears.
If the BBC thinks viewers should be aware of the relevance of ResPublica, I for one am prepared to trust their experience.
(FYI, the captions are shown at 1.08, 3.45, 7.34, 12.30 and 18'09".)
  • [5] All of the discussion is political, so it relates as much (if not more so) to the think tank, rather than Blond as an individual. It's not as though Blond states he's speaking in a purely personal capacity. It's not as though the interview relates to Blond's non-political experience or likes & dislikes. It's purely political - hence, I would argue, more an insight into ResPublica than Blond the man.
  • [6] Last (for now) but not least, removal of this clip & Cite detract from the notability of ResPublica. Its removal may be seen as an attempt to diminish perceived notability. (Please don't re-iterate arguments here re notability - as you'll probably know, there's a separate section for discussing that, above.)

Trafford09 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for excluding HARDtalk

[edit]

Simple - Nothing to do with ResPublica - should not go in the lead. Codf1977 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the interview were about the man - his general interests, hobbies, books, music, likes & dislikes etc. - then I would agree.
But the interview is purely about politics, and ResPublica's shown in 7 places, including the BBC presenter's reference to it as a 'leading think tank'.
Please could you expand your argument, to support your claim that it's nothing to do with ResPublica? --Trafford09 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interview was conducted before the launch - it was a part of the publicity for the launch - do you see the Microsoft article citing that Bill Gates appears on TV ? - besides the line removed was "ResPublica's director, Phillip Blond, has been the main guest on programmes such as HARDtalk" that is makeing no claim about ResPublica only that Phillip Blond has been on TV - put it in Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the interview was conducted before the official launch, but I don't see any problem there. I'm sure the think tank was well known beforehand, and it surely would take a month or two to arrange a suitable venue for the official launch. They would also have had to give 300+ people with busy diaries sufficient notice to attend the launch, not least David Cameron, who as you know both attended and spoke at the launch.
It seems that your point of view is that "[the interview] was a part of the publicity for the launch". Leaving aside whether the BBC would be duped into a publicity stunt, your comment shows that even you think the interview was - at least in part - connected to ResPublica.
That being so, have you not argued in favour of retaining the clip as a reference to ResPublica?
As for your suggestion (and I take it as one) - to add the clip into Phillip Blond's article - well by all means wp:be bold and do that, should you see fit.
But to my mind, you've not established the case that the clip has nothing to do with the ResPublica article. --Trafford09 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sure the think tank was well known beforehand" - prove it.
"But to my mind, you've not established the case that the clip has nothing to do with the ResPublica article" - but the line clearly is not about ResPublica it is about PB and the fact he has been on TV. Codf1977 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economist Cites The Influence of ResPublica

[edit]

The Economist Leads with ResPublica as among the most influential thinktanks in the UK http://www.economist.com/node/16700202?story_id=16700202 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.97.213 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, IP 88.230.97.213. It looks like an ideal, independent reliable source that we can use and cite in the article. If nobody beats me to it, I'll work it in, over the next day or so. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This notion of ResPublica being non-notable and a possible subject for deletion is fatuous. While I don't agree with much of what he says, Philip Blond is clearly a public figure people are likely to be curious about. Even if ResPublica is simply a vehicle for Blond - which seems questionable given the other figures involved - the same would apply. I came here to find some information about ResPublica. I have found some but what I find dominating the article are these tags suggesting that the article doesn't warrant preservation. The point of an encyclopaedia is to provide information that people are looking for. Wikipedia's object was to gather knowledge in one place on the internet. But so much time and energy is diverted on Wikipedia by people exploiting Wikipedia guidelines to impose their own view of what should e considered important and what is not. They seem to prefer not having information available to having it in a form they disapprove of. Where is the problem with simply helping to improve an article? Opbeith (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Opbeith. I too first searched for this article to find some information about ResPublica. There was none, so I created the article & learnt a lot (I'd never meta:deletionist.) I'm pleased that WP-experience isn't all thus. Trafford09 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trafford09, thank you for your effort and persistence!Opbeith (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual publications

[edit]

I've removed these sections, after checking them, because they were simply linkspam and clearly failed WP:EL andy (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ResPublica&oldid=1209404004"