Talk:Centre for European Policy Studies

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Centre for European Policy Studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326175210/http://www.daniel-gros.net/dr/?q=bio to http://www.daniel-gros.net/dr/?q=bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Suggestion to add context on CEPS' mission and yearly conference in the introduction, which is currently lacking information:

CEPS' mission is to provide evidence-based policy research into global challenges, focusing on Europe's role in an international setting. Its yearly flagship conference is the CEPS Ideas Lab, which centers around current pressing issues including the year of elections and global AI governance in 2024.Elmaestrobert (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Elmaestrobert (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not Done: The way that this request has been worded and the reference to the subject's "mission" and "flagship conference" demonstrate that it is purely promotional in intent. There is absolutely no place on Wikipedia for such material. Axad12 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Status section

Axad12, you've removed the "status" section that I recently added (as a replacement for the previously highly promotional, self-sourced article content) - ironically because you seem to view it as promotional as well. What is it that you find promotional about this? I deliberately based it on third-party assessments of the CEPS's status. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My impression was primarily that I thought it was WP:UNDUE to spend the majority of the article giving other people's estimates of the status of the CEPS. That seemed to me to be, in effect, promotional. I don't think I can think of another article which consists of such material to such an advanced degree.

My feeling is that the significance of the organisation ought to be demonstrated by detailing what it has actually done or achieved, rather than by listing other people's comments.

Obviously others may well take a different position. Axad12 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was an attempted start at establishing an article based on secondary sources. What we're left with after your removal of that material is a majority of sources being primary ones published by the organisation. I don't see how this is an improvement. While it would be good to detail what CEPS has actually done or achieved, that would require coverage of those things in secondary sources, which I'm still looking for. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me Larry. No objections on my part if you do.

Alternatively, leave the material out of the article and wait for the contact at CEPS to provide balanced coverage of what they actually do.

I'm happy either way.

However, it does seem a little irregular for there to be what is essentially a 'Critical Reception' type section without any details of what the critical reception is based upon. That was why I wrongly assumed that the material had been added by a COI editor.

I know, of course, that you are not a COI editor - and indeed I have the greatest of respect for your work here (especially re: ICOC). Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No offense taken (and hopefully none caused either)! I'll give some thought to how I can rework and supplement the material before I restore it in some form. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, none caused at all. Wishing you all the very best, Axad12 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)