Talk:Policy Exchange

December 2007

Following the Newsnight investigation and the response of its Research Director, Dean Godson, it is now not appropriate not to provide some link from this article to a Neo-conservative link given the Wiki's own entry for Mr Godson. Not to do so would not give the reader a full appreciation of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.228.122 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong suspicion that Policy Exchange itself is editing this article. Flagged to Wikipedia for action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterrows (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FisherQueen suggests the addition that it is unimportant to mention that legal action against the BBC has not occurred is irrelevant because "things that haven't happened, aren't important." I disagree because the threat of legal action was volubly made by Policy Exchange - and that is quoted in the article. If FisherQueen wishes to remove the quote about legal action against the BBC - which also refers to something that hasn't happened, then it would also be reasonable to delete my insertion. It is reasonable to suspect that D Godson made the legal threat as part of a media strategy, therefore I suggest my addition must be included with his quote. William1shaw (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with William1shaw - important to give update on current status 86.0.104.235 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They've been forced to apologise and have removed the report from their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.177.218 (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Political stance

The assertion that Policy Exchange does not disclose the sources of its funding looks a little like WP:Original Research so I don't insist that it stay. However, the political stance of Policy Exchange is a matter of much controversy and these unqualified assertions that it is "centre-right" are not suitable. Please discuss here rather than making uncommented changes. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(This is a cross-post) As another input in this discussion, it is vitally important to present both sides views on Policy Exchange's political stance. As has been previously stated on the talk/history pages, the politics of this think tank itself are a "story" given serious questions have been raised about its independence. It is clearly not considered by prominent authorities to be "centre-right" even though it claims to be given recent events. Therefore the proper position in presenting an NPOV must surely be to give both sides of the story and let the reader make up his/her mind. With regard to not disclosing its funding, the fact is it doesn't and again, that is relevant information for the reader in ascertaining its purported independence. If we say it is a charity, then normally charities disclose their source of funding. In this case Policy Exchange doesn't so it's important to add this. I understand the issue of possible OR but it's hard to reference a "negative" claim (ie how do you prove it doesn't disclose its source of funding?) - the fact is, figures for funding are nowhere to be found in its published literature or its website. 86.0.104.235 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about making the assertion that it doesn't disclose its sources of funding. I agree that information about funding sources is important and I accept that the assertion is probably true. The obvious objection is that unless there's some source that says Policy Exchange doesn't disclose it's sources, (and there's no actual requirement to prove the negative, just a requirement to source it) this is original research by any definition I can think of. I'm also a little suspicious of the way that sentence is phrased, with the word "though", as if there's something dubious about a charity not disclosing its sources, which isn't something we should decide.

On the matter of Policy Exchange's political stance, you're quite right. Any assertion that PE is centre-right is highly controversial. The way some users have been repeatedly reverting while refusing requests to discuss is not acceptable. If they want the page to read a certain way, they must be prepared to give some justification, just like everyone else. I'm reluctant to seek semi-protection for this page because of the important contribution that anonymous users have made but it would put an end to this reverting. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your point. How about a compromise with removing the "though" and bracketing the bit on funding ie "it is a registered charity (sources of funding are not disclosed)" to make it less loaded. Also have just noticed someone deleted the dispute between the 1990 Trust and Policy Exchange on the Living Together report. No reason given again for the deletion - have re-instated it with explanation in edit history (going through the history I see this has been subject to an edit war on more than one occasion so someone is uncomfortable with these findings!). I agree on the semi-protect stance but you may have to consider if this pointless reversion continues. Maybe a few more warnings? I note the IP address always seems to be traced to the same ISP (Blue Yonder!). 86.0.104.235 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the IP can't possibly have missed the complaints about his revert warring. As it's rather infrequent at the moment, and there's no possibility of a three revert rule violation, a protection request doesn't seem worth the trouble so I'm going to keep reverting. I'll have a think about the funding information and see what I can find out as well. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good strategy - re the funding, I might do some research myself - these figures are usually published in an Annual Report but I can't find one for PE. Maybe the Charities Commission or even PE themselves might help? I may email them myself! Happy New Year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.104.235 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC) oops,forgot to sign 86.0.104.235 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The political stance is hotly disputed - can see edit today to imply that any contested position is a minority one - this is simply not true. If anything, the only place I have seen PE described as "centre-right" is on its website - everyone else desscribes it as right-wing! 82.27.247.183 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re funding: There is an OpenDemocracy report stating "Policy Exchange keeps its donors a secret". Some information on funding is available because of disclosure by donors. --Mnjuckes (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Policy Exchange v the 1990 Trust

Some people are determined to keep on deleting the dispute between these two think tanks. It has been inserted, reverted, deleted on several occasions. There is no reason why it should be deleted. It is referenced and both POVs are presented. To remove one and pretend there is no controversy is clearly not neutral. 82.27.247.183 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits I have reverted seem difficult to justify. In a section about a controversy over forged evidence, removing a word like "allegedly" is disruptive. In the absence of any explanation from policy exchange, to conclude that the two receipts "could have been" written written by the same hand, as if this isn't very likely, is completely absurd, almost to the point of seeming deliberately misleading. The point of the sections on controvers "The Hijacking of British Islam report controversy" and "Living Apart Together report" isn't to give detailed information about PE's reports - individual reports just aren't notable enought to have their own sections. What makes these reports notable is the controversy they caused and that is the purpose of the sections. To say that the BBC described a report as "nuanced etc" is a little misleading when the comment in question is an opinion piece by a named journalist. I could go on... --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The piece in question is not an opinion piece, it is labelled as 'Analysis' by the BBC's Home Affairs spokesman. Analysis is, obviously, analytical, whereas Opinion is not. The BBC does post Opinion pieces, but they are not labelled Analysis, and not by a labelled 'Home Affairs' peron.

That there is in fact NO mention of any controversy on the BBC or indeed any other reputable website than a couple of letters to The Guardian, means it presents a grossly distorted impression to present it in any other way than 'research widely reported in MSM, although it was criticised by a few people.'

The insistence that the 1990 Trust's 'findings' disprove anything are also designed to mislead, given that the Policy Exchange report was conducted by Populus, a reputable, independent pollster that is run by actual polling professionals that are governed by the British Polling Council, and the research could not possibly have been interfered with by Policy Exchange (the only control they would have is over the questions).

Has anyone actually read this so-called study? According to the Blink report, "Between the 8th and 27th September 2006, 1213 people responded to this online survey. It was posted on various Muslim websites: Muslim Directory, Muslim Public Affairs Committee (UK), Q News, and the Islamic Human Rights Commission". Hello???? Website polls anybody? Completely worthless. And MPACUK, the group that actually posted on its website that the authors of the Policy Exchange report should be hunted down? This is NOT a reliable source, and has no place in this article.

I think the unsigned comment above is tendentious to say the least. The 1990 Trust report was an academically based report with a published methodology. I have read it and it is readily available. I wonder how many people actually READ the PE report. A well publicised report is no proof of its authenticity or credibility, it just speaks volumes about a good PR exercise - most academic reports of quality get no press coverage. They are given their worth by their methodology and their peer review. The 1990 Trust report has published its methodology which PE refuses to do and that is a story in itself. Both points of view are referenced and simply because you don't like the results of the 1990 Trust survey doesn't invalidate its findings. So what if Populus carried out the survey? They only asked the questions and they asked it on the basis of a telephone poll where no checks were carried out to see if the respondents were genuine or met the criteria of the target demographic. If PE was so confident of its findings, it would publish its methodology and answer the critiques of the survery and it doesn't. It produces no proof at all to counter the criticisms. The fact is since the Newsnight investigation, there is a big question mark over PE's credibility and its political agenda and simply hiding inconvenient facts won't change that. If you can prove there are questions over the 1990 Trust's report, then by all means insert this in the text as well. Otherwise, your comments amount to a whinge and subjective musings over the quality of a survey whose results you find unpalatable. Sorry but that's not good enough. See NPOV guidelines.

81.109.248.1 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are going on about with methodologies. The Policy Exchange report was national news because they provided lots of juicy statistics that news editors could quote like 'x% of Muslims approve of terrorism'. Now, I don't get the impression you understand much about how opinion polls work, but all reputable pollsters are members of the British Polling Council, which requires opinion polls to be published IN FULL on their website, with the wording of questioning, sampling, etc. This is on the Populus website: [1], which states "Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,003 Muslims aged 18+ by telephone between 4th December 2007 and 13th December 2007. Interviews were conducted across England and the results have been weighted to be representative of all English adults. Populus is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. For a full description of the methods we use, please click here."

Now as to 'the report's methodology', given that the report consists of essentially an essay with lots of stats from the poll, there is NO METHODOLOGY of the report - only the poll itself, but you really are wasting your time if you are trying to undermine the reputation of British polling to prove your point.

The story was "Here are lots of interesting stats about Islam, which is a subject that is currently topical". To attempt to claim that the report was controversial in the way that has been depicted in this article is absurd, and bears no connection to reality. Someone bleating that their questionnaire sent to some ragtag bunch of people didn't agree with a professionally conducted RELIABLE poll is NOT notable. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wiki guidelines on NPOV. Conflicting POVs if referenced to RS should be presented if there is a clear difference of opinion which clearly there is here. I am not sure anyone is undermining any polling agency, the point is how was this data used, what were the actual questions asked and how what was the nature of the analysis carried out. Clearly the report WAS controversial given the criticisms it received from academic experts in the field. The emotive language you use clearly shows you seem to have an "agenda". It is not for you to determine what is a controversy or what is a credible polling organisation or who/what is newsworthy and what isn't. In Wikipedia, it is a public consensus which counts and publicly, this report has caused controversy - there are enough RS to prove this (although you seem to continue deleting anything which does not accord with your personal POVs). Furthermore, since the Newsnight investigation, this think tank has been under the spotlight about its political motives and its credibility. This is relevant to the issue. You really need to read WIKI guidelines on NPOV. You simply do not delete material you find inconvenient. You leave all relevant POVs and let the reader make up their mind. If you find data which challenges the position of the 1990 Trust then by all means insert that also. But do NOT censor because you personally DON'T like the data - and let the reader make up their mind.

86.27.67.225 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The 1990 Trust survey, btw, whilst not gaining the coverage the PE report did (for the very reasons you describe, ie the PE report was much more sensationalist) was still quoted in the mainstream press http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1924742,00.html by Jonathan Freedland, one the country's leading left-wing press commentators. You may think its results are "rag tag" or not "notable", others (more newsworthy than you) did not - present both facts and let the reader decide. Please do not pointlessly revert - once you read the Wiki guidelines I hope this will clear things up. Otherwise a semi-protect is definitely in order. 86.27.67.225 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to smile reading the comments by anon poster 82... He accords almost gospel status to Populus which I am sure even that polling organisation would blush at. Polls are inherently subjective and there is no polling org'n, NOT ONE, which would claim its findings are definitive or 100% accurate. That's why different polls give different results. The fact is academic studies are more rigorous than polls, which are only snapshots, are not referenced and are not peer-reviewed. And in this case, the academics slate the PE report and their opinions support the other one. By all means, find some academics to slate the other one (or any other critique of it, obviously with RS), but don't preach to all according to the Gospel of Populus. Its findings don't "prove" anything (I challenge you to get anyone at Populus to say it does), it simply offers a "version" which of course should be presented. So should, as has been quite rightly, other "versions" be similarly presented. If one polling organisation was ALWAYS right then we'd have no difference in any opinion poll results would we? Presenting both sides is called "neutrality" - it's what Wikipedia is all about. Masterrows (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed below to deindent. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the above comments and I have a few points to make. 1. The assertion that PE does not disclose its funding is prejudicial and we're probably better off without it. The same goes for the assertion that PE "conceded" that the report was in fact conducted over six months - at least until we have a citation.
2. On "The Living Apart Together report controversy": the report was probably notable in its own right and so on second thoughts it might be best to leave the word "controversy" out of the title as well as leaving out the sentence "It attracted considerable media coverage for its poll findings but its credibility and accuracy were subsequently challenged." Additional information about the report and its authors should be included. Academic criticism is certainly worthy of mention and should not be removed. The same is true of a dispute with another high profile think tank. They should be kept separate from information about the report and words like "however" should be avoided.
3. As I have said, analysis pieces aren't news; they're comment, essays or personal polemic. "According to the BBC..." isn't an appropriate formula for introducing the opinion of a BBC journalist. "According to Dominic Casciani, writing for bbc.co.uk, the report was..." is appropriate.
4. I believe the section "The Hijacking of British Islam report controversy" is basically balanced. If the report appears one-sided it is only because Policy Exchange has failed to offer any explanation for evidence of forgery. If PE offered this explanation, it would be included in the article; the fact that no explanation exists does not mean that the allegations should be removed too. Changing: "suggesting that the two were written by the same person at the same time and place." to: "suggesting that the two could have been written by the same person at the same time and place. " is very silly. The article doesn't go too far by saying "proving that" instead it says "suggesting" and the rewording appears to be an attempt to deny patently obvious. PE's response (that mosques have not denied parts of the report and Newsnight got its priorities wrong) is, however, reported--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically agreed with Lo2u above except for the 6 month study bit - Dean Godson of Policy Exchange conceded this on the Newsnight interview himself - surely it can be referenced to that external link which is already on the page. On everything else I think your points are fair and we are hopefully achieving consensus (bar some more pointless reverts!) Masterrows (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. A user keeps insisting on adding this language back in, and has done so causing a slow motion edit war. Colt .55 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Unfortunately whipping this page into shape may prove rather tiresome. Masterrows/various anonymous IPs starting 86. obviously come from a certain perspective, i.e. one that is upset about perceived slights against Islam/Muslims by Policy Exchange, and have a determination to enforce this point of view on every body else.

I will address Masterrow's comments above, although I am suspicious of his motives. The first Islam report, was used, even in right-wing sources, purely as an OPINION POLL, i.e. a set of statistics on opinion. [2] The claim 'academic studies are more reliable' is meaningless, especially given that the 1990 Trust/Blink/Black Link Exchange is a HIGHLY partisan source, and 'academics' can range from far-left to far-right, but ALWAYS have their own point of view. The sentence "The Policy Exchange findings were also at wide variance with other studies" is designed to mislead, because it implies that there is anything other than the self-published 'research' of a highly partisan organisation which describes itself as "set up to protect and pioneer the interest of Britain’s Black Communities".

Again there is no research or reports, there is only a POLL, that is ALL that anyone was interested in. The paragraph supposedly contradicting the Populus POLL claims " just 1% of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombings". Now that is a statistic on people's opinions, and as such can ONLY come from POLLING people's opinions. Given

(a) the Blink/1990 claims are self-published and unreferenced anywhere else

(b) Blink is highly partisan and biased

(c) The Blink polling is clearly extremely poorly conducted by online questionnaires on a random selection of ragtag bag of online sites such as MPACUK, which definitely DO NOT represent a representative spectrum of actual Muslim opinion.

(d) The Policy Exchange polling was conducted by a highly respected polling organisation that follow professional standards and whose reputation depends on accountability and transparency

(e) Even having seen that the Blink poll methodology is utterly appalling, there are absolutely no guarantees or safeguards about even the results that they claim for their polling, because it was conducted by its own partisan people, not commercial pollsters with a reputation to uphold.

Now I have no problem with saying that there was criticism of this report, but the tone must be balanced, given that the poll findings were given extensive and favourably received across nearly all of the media, and to distort this by posting every letter to the Guardian by some partisan academic, every self-published shrill claim of bias is just wrong.

On lo2u's comments, "According to Dominic Casciani, writing for bbc.co.uk," is clearly inappropriate. Take these articles on Castro:

• [3] By Duncan Kennedy BBC News, Cuba
• [4] No byline
• [5] By Stephanie Holmes, BBC News

All of these are BBC reports, and all of them carry the editorial weight of the BBC, the only difference is between a news report and a researched piece. To say that someone is 'writing for bbc.co.uk' is to mislead, by implying that they are not representing BBC editorial viewpoint.

This is what someone 'writing for the BBC' looks like:

[6]

and is labelled "argues internet law professor Michael Geist".

Hence I have to revert this all back. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please stop this wholesale reverting. It's unconstructive and unnecessary and rather ill-mannered. To insist that you will carry on reverting as long as the article dosen't read exactly as you wish undermines attempts to find consensus. The objections you express relate entirely to one section. You're also restoring bits of poor writing and grammar.

Nevertheless in the light of what you say, I think the 1990 Trust comments need to be looked at carefully. This doesn't mean criticism should be removed, but I would like to know more about the level of publicity 1990 has received and where its writing was published. If it only appears on the group's website it deserves little mention.

"According to the BBC the report was [adjective]..." is not an appropriate introduction to this controversial assertion. The BBC does not have an explicit editorial viewpoint and I intend to resist efforts to impose this wording on the article because I think it casts a complicated situation in a deliberately misleading light. I also believe most Wikipedia editors would agree with me.

I've noticed your removal of the Times's apology and I really don't understand it. Only by a very careless reading might it be thought to imply that the Times withdrew its entire article. If you really are concerned that the paragraph gives this impression, fix it rather than trying to hide information. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I spent a long time editing the introduction which portrayed the image of Policy Exchange being a 'hard right' organisation in something like the second sentence (choosing the worst possible adjective from one single comment piece in The Guardian attacking a specific piece of research), when it is in fact an organisation in the mainstream of British politics, and is essentially David Cameron's policy and research department, and should be portrayed as such, just as other mainstream thinktanks on wikipedia are given an accurate non-attacking write-up as well. I also edited the section on the Islam report to more accurately reflected reality ALL OF MY CHANGES WERE THEN BLANKED REVERTED. It is not me that did the wholesale reverting. A couple of small changes were made as against my more substantial changes, so I reverted back.

The problem is the anon IP who reverted snd destroyed all my work without bothering to spend any time working towards compromise.

Secondly, I am not sure why you are mentioning language and grammar again. If you don't like any language, then change it, it's a minor issue that is easily fixed. What I am not hapy with is spending a substantial amount of time turning this from an attack page on Policy Exchange into something more balanced, and then having it all wiped out, and the priority is NOT to have a perfectly worded attack page, but rather a fair and balanced piece, that once we have agreed on content can then be copy edited.

Regarding the BBC, simply, 'According Dominic X, BBC Home Affairs,' sees quite reasonable

Re The Times retraction, the section is already overlong and already quite clearly conveys the issues with the receipts, I don't see that that adds anything. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the edit summary:

"My objections were to the blanket reversion/destruction of my work including introduction which portrayed a distorted image of P Exchange as some kind of extremist organisation"

First of all, you do not own what you write; when you submit your writing to Wikipedia, you accept that others can edit it. You can't stop others editing an article because it "destroys your work".

Secondly, here's introduction you keep restoring:

"Policy Exchange is a British think tank based in London. It describes itself as right of centre, but has also been labeled "neo-con attack dog""

And my preferred version:

"Policy Exchange is a British think tank based in London. It describes itself as right of centre although it has been described variously as hard right[1] and right in the British media..."

Which of these makes PE look like an extremist organistion? Discuss you changes here rather than acting in a way that undermines the principle of consensus.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not make any claim to own anything, however, I do hope that others will respect people's efforts, which you at least seem to do. I made various edits, all of which were simply wiped out without a second's thought or attention by an anonymous user. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to object to this, and am happy to discuss any aspects of the content with anyone that chooses to participate.

Regarding the description of Policy Exchange, the NPOV policy requires that undue weight should not be given to anything. I believe that choosing the worst possible description of the organisation on the centrist/extremist scale, a single use of the word "hard right" in one article is undue weight, given that the organisation plainly is not hard right. Groups that have been described as 'Hard Right' are things like The Monday Club, and Policy Exchange bears no relation whatsoever to the Monday Club in its political thought. I am not quite sure the determination to pin them to an exact position in the political spectrum in this article, it appears to have been motivated by an attempt by various aggrieved Muslims to label them as far-right extremists. A fairly reasonable description would be 'on the right of British politics, closely allied to David Cameron's Conservative Party'. I am not entirely convinced about the Neoconservatism label either to be honest, this is generally intended as a slur in modern politics, and they are quite a large organisation and there are many angles to their research, and having picked one at random from their website it was authored by David Willetts MP, who is not a neoconservative, and nor are most of the others involved. The reality is that they are a modern Conservative thinktank reflecting the modern Conservative Party fairly well. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If I was rude I apologise. When I partially reverted your edits, I attempted to preserve every new point you introduced. (I didn't quite do this in the case of the introduction - mainly because I strongly disagree with the use of a phrase like "attack dog" and missed the valuable information in the next few lines). Where you explained your objections I made concessions to take them into account and I left your changes intact where I felt you made good points but I don't see the point in making minor editorial changes to an unstable article, as you suggest, when you're periodically reverting everything back to your own version - you even removed one of my {{Fact}} templates.

I am sorry if I removed your work in any way. However when changes are reverted as you and the anon user did, it is difficult to keep track of what is going on, and when a major revert is accompanied by a single statement then it might be things get lost.

When you then reverted back to the other version saying "The anon's objections relate entirely to one section; his revert however was wholesale. I'm leaving "Living Together" as it is but restoring changes elsewhere that resulted in bias and poor writing", I felt this was a bit odd when I had obviously objected to all of the sections I had reverted, it's just that nobody had bothered to discuss the other ones, merely wiping them back to a previous one. 82.31.164.67 (talk)

You deleted entire sections of a very controversial article in spite of the objections of three other editors and you only attempted to justify some of your changes. I think the reason you were reverted so quickly is that your IP address and your edits are similar to those of another user who has removed large sections and refuses to discuss his edits in spite of being asked to explain himself more times than I can count.

I have no problem justifying changes and have done so. What I do not appreciate is people reverting without discussing. Your faith in the IP that reverted me is heartwarming, but I think somewhat misplaced, I think there are several people here who are determined to besmirch Policy Exchange's reputation over its reports on Islam. It is not entirely clear from the logs who is who, but there are others (or the same person) in this article's history making comments about NPOV while reverting constructively changes persistently to biased content (such as masterrows who was blocked for it). 82.31.164.67 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction, I would suggest something like "Policy Exchange is a British think tank with strong links to the Conservative Party. It is usually placed on the right of the political spectrum." - no "hard right" and "no centre right".

That is more sensible. There is a sense in which this article has gone: User A: "Policy Exchange eats babies" User B: hmm, that's absurdly biased, delete it. User A comes back re-adds the statement, User B comes back and says, well we need to represent this point of view in some way even if it's not as blatantly biased as that, how about "Policy Exchange mugs little old ladies." So you end up with comments such as it being 'hard right' which clearly have no place in a description of the organisation, and a general obsession with identifying how right-wing they are, even though they are quite a broad church thinktank that has entertained numerous politicians of varyng right-wing persuasions and it is almost certainly not possible to identify exactly what shade of Right they are. As to your wording, the first sentence is correct, the second is a bit odd, they are ALWAYS placed on the right, as indeed are the Conservative Party. I think by saying 'PE have strong links to Tories' you have done enough to identify where they are. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Times's apology, this is highly pertinent information because it gives weight to Newsnight's allegations. Not only does it call into question the accuracy of PE's report and the honesty of its researchers, it has also been cited by Newsnight's editor.

There was little difference between our rival versions in your last revert, apart from in respect to those parts that I've discussed here so I'm leaving this as it is until I hear your reply, though I think this article needs work. I don't want an attack article but I don't want a eulogy either and unfortunately the most unconstructive edits recently have been those of anonymous users who dislike any mention of controversy. The removal of the Times's apology and the use of "according to the BBC" are only small things, but so are phrases like "described as hard right" and "it does not disclose its sources" - they can all result in the presentation of a non-neutral point of view.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a big danger of getting this out of perspective. As I said, Policy Exchange are still a very important right-wing thinktank, easily the most important and influential in Britain today. We should avoid getting side-tracked from this fact by a few people who want to write an article that says 'Policy Exchange are nasty brutes who slander Islam'. The Islam reports they did do not represent over half of their entire importance or significance, and the other work and reports that they do on social policy, etc. are not going to stop getting reported because of it - this report by Steve Norris et al on transport [7] is reported because Policy Exchange is a has influential people producing serious reports for it. And no mention of Muslims there nor on 99% of the stuff they do.

On the Times retraction, I still don't think it's adding anything. The nasty poison for Policy Exhange is the allegations of forgery. That is a very serious thing, and if you look at The Times article that the retraction was of[8] it alleges extremist material in 25 mosques, naming eight specifically, INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE of those, High Wycombe [9] where the BBC say the receipt was produced on top of another one from a different mosque.

The TImes made a front page spread saying "terror mosques", discussing numerous mosques, and the ONLY thing they have retracted is the very minor (in comparison to forgery) point about the books actually coming from a shop next door to a mosque. They HAVE NOT retracted any of those that are alleged to be forgeries, simply because that has not proven.

If it was simply a case of "Policy Exchange report claims 25 mosques contain terror books: scandal it turns out one of the books was actually book at the shop next door to the mosque", there really would be little to no controversy. That is what we have from the Times retraction.

In fact, what you say, that "it gives weight to Newsnight's allegations" is untrue, firstly because of the omission of any actual retraction on the basis of forgery (which is the real danger to Policy Exchange's reputation), and secondly because they don't NEED to give weight to anything, because the claim that the retraction supports, viz. that one of the books actually came from the shop next door is one that is actually acknowledged by Policy Exchange ("Policy Exchange has accepted its researcher bought books from the bookshop next door but argue it was justified in saying in the report that they came from the mosque because, they say, its researcher was led from the mosque into the bookshop to buy the books – and that means the mosque approved the material. ")! Moreover, the claim that the book came from the shop next door is actually not from the Newsnight investigation but comes directly from the mosque itself and the BBC's investigation did not uncover it at all,so the retraction clearly has no value in determining the reliability or otherwise of the BBC's claims (though I would say that I don't see it as especially important in any case to find sources to prove the BBC claims reliability, because you could not find a more trusted source than the BBC in the first place, so again the value of supporting pieces, were this one, is slighter than if this investigation had been published in say The Socialist Worker). [10]

82.31.164.67 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere. Your last revert actually wasn't a major departure from my own version;[11] only the difference in paragraphing makes the changes seem major. I think you overstate the people's desire to discredit PE in the introduction. I supported the centre-right/hard-right wording because I don't think it's appropriate to assert that Policy Exchange is centre-right simply because it says so and because terms like "right wing", "centre right" and "hard right" all have certain potitive or negative connotations that some would object to - it's very difficult to say anything factual about its political position. I certainly did not support "Policy exchange is a controversial right-wing think tank..." which appeared at one point.

On the subject of the Times's retraction, any judgement of its importance ought to be made by those reading the article who should be presented with the facts. I have to say I find PE's explanations (and the way that it neglects to explain so much while standing by its allegations "100%") extremely disingenuous. It has also attempted to reinterpret forensic evidence (so "highly likely" becomes "could not be sure"). Rather than admitting that its researchers fabricated evidence, though perhaps without its knowledge, PE attempted to argue the unarguable. Of course the paragraph shouldn't say all that (in fact I've probably said too much here) but, if it gives a negative impression of the think tank, that is because it could not possibly give any other impression.

As I understand things, the receipt in question (written on headed paper that was printed on an inkjet printer) had the name of the mosque on the front but gave the wrong address, an address that actually belonged to a nearby bookshop. This was part of the evidence used by Newsnight. PE responded with the suggestion that a representative of the mosque had led its researcher to bookshop, a suggestion taken up by the mosque at a time when it had no reason to suspect evidence was fabricated but believed it had not sold the literature. Newsnight's editor has cited this apology as a fact that supports his report. It is certainly a fact that is relevant to any controversy over the report. If the paragraph on the apology said: "Newsnight's allegations were given further support by the fact that the Times issued an apology..." I think you'd have a point but this is simply the removal of relevant information that is damaging to PE.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've tried to clarify things a bit more, the mess of allegations is a bit complex. Hope it's better.

Re centre-right/fascist/whatever, I think it's easiest to leave this out entirely. It really is absurd, simply because we can find a reference for it in one page on the internet, to say they are "hard right". Saying that they have strong links to the Conservative Party makes it clear what they are. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Debate on balance or otherwise of article

Sorry but i think the anon user 82 is trying to delete anything negative pertaining to Policy Exchange - this is simply not the truth and readers should have the right to view all relevant points of view. Each successive revision is simply justified by the fact that he doesn't respect the 1990 Trust's report or doesn't agree with the political description but this is verging on OR. If he doesn't like it, then he must provide RS support or else this is just his opinion. What is clear is that this user simply wants to erase any whiff of controversy or suggestion that PE is anything less than credible but this is surely misleading - the fact is the think tank itself is a story following recent media coverage and to pretend it isn't is deceptive.

Let's cover these points which are used to attack the 1990 Research (not Blink who publicised it):

(a) the Blink/1990 claims are self-published and unreferenced anywhere else

"Self-published"? No more so than anyone else or PE for that matter. They have been quoted/referenced and a link has been provided above from the Guardian inter alia. I discuss this below.

(b) Blink is highly partisan and biased

Not any more so than the PE themselves who have been accused exactly of the same charge - what is partisan for you is not necessarily partisan for others. This is your OR. In fact the very fact there has been so much debate on the think tank's political stance implies Policy Exchnage are also highly partisan would it not?

(c) The Blink polling is clearly extremely poorly conducted by online questionnaires on a random selection of ragtag bag of online sites such as MPACUK, which definitely DO NOT represent a representative spectrum of actual Muslim opinion.

"Clearly, extremely, poorly"? Rather over the top don't you think considering you have no RS in support? Do you have proof for these highly critical allegations apart from yourself? Otherwise this is OR. If you can find properly sourced critique then you should add it - not decide for yourself who is "ragtag" - you consistently use this pointless argument and cannot seem to understand that simply because you find data which challenges your own preferred stance doesn't mean it should be deleted. Policy Exhange were obviously given the chance to rebut the other report - they didn't and no-one else has, least of Populus - why are you therefore getting so het up on their behalf? I am genuinely interested.

Not at all. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is clearly defined. There is obviously no database stating whether an individual source is reliable or not, you have to look at it and see whether it merits inclusion. A quick look at [12] will help explain why the Blink research is of no value. And yes, Policy Exchange is partisan and biased, but this page is about Policy Exchange, not about Blink. As such what Policy Exchange has said belongs on this page - what Blink says only belongs here if it is notable and reliable. Given the lack of coverage of Blink's claims and the quite obviously poor quality of its research it has no place for it.

I imagine neither Populus nor Policy Exchange bothered because the accusations received no coverage and are not from a particularly credible source. Populus would obviously have an interest in defending their professional reputation as impartial pollsters, given especially that they are not likely to get any more income from Policy Exchange and have no particular reason to be biased, and would have done so were there anything that needed saying. I have not even seen evidence that either party is even AWARE of Blink's claims, so it's a deliberate slander on their names to imply that they failed to respond to something they probably never even saw.

(d) The Policy Exchange polling was conducted by a highly respected polling organisation that follow professional standards and whose reputation depends on accountability and transparency

Excellent - and now the piece makes that point very clearly - everyone is aware of it now.

(e) Even having seen that the Blink poll methodology is utterly appalling, there are absolutely no guarantees or safeguards about even the results that they claim for their polling, because it was conducted by its own partisan people, not commercial pollsters with a reputation to uphold.

Again BLINK did not produce the report - "utterly appalling" is highly partisan commentary on your part and really suggests you are holding an a priori position on this topic - hence the reason I treat your edits with some suspicion. Surveys do not usually have guarantees - they are descriptions and they do not claim to be "truth" and they all accept they have "margins of error" - get used to it.

Eh? Blink did produce the report. It says so right here! [13]

"The 1990 Trust believe their new survey". 1990 Trust and Blink are one and the same, if you are not aware of that, then you need to be more informed before you comment.

BTW, this statement rather reinforces the fact that their research is worthless: "new survey reflects the real views of Muslims, and that other polls have attempted to generate headlines claiming more support for terrorism than is actually the case."

OTHER POLLS? The Policy Exchange poll was published AFTER this one, so even 1990 Trust say that their survey results are at odds to other polls (and not just Policy Exchange). So we know that PE's poll + a number of other polls say one thing, and 1990 Trust says another, and we've already seen that the 1990T's research is worthless. So given by 1990 Trust's own admission, at least three polls showing one thing, and only their bizarre 'research' showing another, how can it possibly be valid to say "The Policy Exchange findings were also at wide variance with other studies". Utter nonsense, deliberately intended to mislead, pushed by people like you, whose agenda is transparently obvious.

I do stand by my comment that 1990 Trust's report is utterly appalling. It is nothing to do with margins of error, but their sampling technology. They sent questionnaires to MPACUK and other Muslim websites. How representative of Muslims in the UK do you think this is? Not in the slightest, quite obviously. Websites tend to attract the more interested, be disproportionately old, etc. I am not a professional pollster, but I do know enough to see a piece of research that has no value when I see one.

By far the most reasonable comments above are from Lou2u and the howling from the same anonymous user who (presumptuously) seeks to "whip this page into shape" implies more than a pronounced motivation. You complain you are blanket reverted but you do the same thing to other people's work and you do very little to work with others. As for this comment: " As I said, Policy Exchange are still a very important right-wing thinktank, easily the most important and influential in Britain today. " - how can you say this without the suspicion that you are very biased yourself?

That statement was sourced to The Daily Telegraph.

Who is to judge which is the most influential or important think tank? What would Chatham House, infinitely more presitigious, respected and long-established think of this?

Chatham House is not a right-wing political thinktank in the vein of Policy Exchange, in fact they are non-aligned and currently have a picture of Gordon Brown on their front page!

This has no basis in fact (only in opinion) and yet you use it to justify mass editing. This is why I am reverting. Until you can show your changes are not similarly politically driven and you can show that you are a little more nuanced in your perspectives. If it is the most "influential", prove it with recent citations (ie post-Newsnight investigation).

Eh? Perhaps you need to read the article before you blinkeredly wipe out content. It's quite clear that you only have one thing in mind, which is push your own narrow point of view, obsessive around Islam, even though 99.9% of Policy Exchange's output has nothing to do with it. Right there, second paragraph: "According to The Daily Telegraph, it is both "the largest, but also the most influential think tank on the right"."

You accuse others of mass editing, but it is true that your IP address seems to match all major edits in favour of Policy Exchange in the history. Bare assertion is not fact.

I should add that although I have made a wholesale reversion due to unfamiliarity with popups, there are certain edits which I think are acceptable expecially with regard to an evolving consensus on the political stance of policy exchange. This for example is perfectly sensible "Regarding the introduction, I would suggest something like "Policy Exchange is a British think tank with strong links to the Conservative Party. It is usually placed on the right of the political spectrum." - no "hard right" and "no centre right" - why was it then changed to a simple ringing endorsement by the Telegraph (whose former editor is engaged in defending the think tank in the same article!) by the same anon user who agreed it was an acceptable compromise?

What definitely raised my suspicions was the above editor's grand claim that policy exchange was the most influential think tank in Britain

You are imagining things in your zeal to prove some kind of conspiracy to promote Policy Exchange (rather odd when I added greater detail on their forgery). I never said that!!!!!! I said it was the most influential RIGHT-WING thinktank.

- this by itself suggests a very politicised editing strategy. Certainly we can agree it is the Conservative's preferred think tank but there would be many on the left who would totally disagree with claiming it is the most influential - imagine the outcry if the left-leaning IPPR said the same thing? Mr Cameron et al would quite rightly have something to say about it. I think the key to resolving this is discussion of edits one by one. I have flagged the article with a bias template given its instability.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS This point was made above: "I think the 1990 Trust comments need to be looked at carefully. This doesn't mean criticism should be removed, but I would like to know more about the level of publicity 1990 has received and where its writing was published. If it only appears on the group's website it deserves little mention." I think a link to where it was reported (in The Guardian) was posted on this page but not curiously in the article itself. I have appended it but am not sure I followed the correct syntax as I am new at this. However even if it is reported in the mainstream media once, it deserves mention. Or else this would invalidate thousands of similar external references in Wikipedia articles which rely on one media source for their RS. Constantly slating another think tank's output is really not conducive unless you can back up your words with objective proof. This comment above really says it all "I don't want an attack article but I don't want a eulogy either and unfortunately the most unconstructive edits recently have been those of anonymous users who dislike any mention of controversy. The removal of the Times's apology and the use of "according to the BBC" are only small things, but so are phrases like "described as hard right" and "it does not disclose its sources" - they can all result in the presentation of a non-neutral point of view." I agree wholeheartedly...

78.175.130.81 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PPS

"There is a big danger of getting this out of perspective. As I said, Policy Exchange are still a very important right-wing thinktank, easily the most important and influential in Britain today. We should avoid getting side-tracked from this fact by a few people who want to write an article that says 'Policy Exchange are nasty brutes who slander Islam'. The Islam reports they did do not represent over half of their entire importance or significance, and the other work and reports that they do on social policy, etc. are not going to stop getting reported because of it - this report by Steve Norris et al on transport [7] is reported because Policy Exchange is a has influential people producing serious reports for it. And no mention of Muslims there nor on 99% of the stuff they do."

The problem is, it is now known most for its reports on Muslims. That it might produce much other output is certainly relevant and you can make that insertion/edit but your brief to seemingly present the Policy Exchange party line is honestly tiresome and wearing thin. You do not even get your facts right - more than 1% of its output actually does relate to Muslims according to its website.

I think when you go to the lengths to start counting the proprtion of reports that relate to Islam, be it 1%, 3% or 5%, it shows the weakness of your argument. Policy Exchange has not stopped its work, Steve Norris did not say "shit, I'm going to dissociate myself from these guys, and cancel my work with them", when this hit the headlines. They are still working, their reports are still getting coverage, and life is going on.

No other think tank which has made such high sounding claims for itself has come under such scrutiny for its credibility and yet you seem to constantly pretend it doesn't matter and we should take your word for it. I'm in Turkey as an expat but I watch BBC World and I heard about it here! How can you then say it is "out of perspective"? If anything, I would suggest the focus provided on these controversies go to the heart of the matter and are very much in perspective.

Who said it didn't matter? I have given full coverage to the forgery accusations, expanding them substantially. What I did object to is rewriting history on the first report and making it out that there was a big controversy about it.

"We should avoid getting side-tracked from this fact by a few people who want to write an article that says 'Policy Exchange are nasty brutes who slander Islam'."

As opposed to getting side-tracked by editors such as yourself who want to write an article as a glowing endorsement and deleting all references to any criticism? It cuts both ways my friend. I cannot see any version of the article in the history which would suggest that "Policy Exchange are nasty brutes who slander Islam'" - this is oversensitive to say the least and begs the question over your partiality.

If you think there is no criticism in this article, you clearly have not read it (well, we've seen that several times already in your comments, so it's hardly a surprise). Two points, on which I will leave you: #1 the first report was not controversial; 2# Policy Exchange does a lot of research, and the next time they produce a study on welfare or transport, it will very likely make its way into Conservative Party (and hence potentially law after the net election) policy - they are not defined by those forgery accusations. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have changed "controversy" to "debate" in the Living Together section as it didn't cause the uproar the other report did.

If you disagree with any of the above (apart from the re-hashing the same arguments which are actually opinion) you should argue point-by-point with REFERENCING to explain your position. Otherwise it is not really constructive or moving the argument forward at all. Thanks.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add: The Sun today, story, about Policy Exchange report. It's got nothing to do with Islam!!!!! [14] The fact that Policy Exchange had high-profile people working on the report, and a high public profile generally,has not been wiped out by the BBC Newsnight investigation. There are a large number of other Media references to their non-Islam research, and none of them even mention the Islam stuff. [15]82.31.164.67 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to answer these points and simply try to obsfuscate - reverting an edit by claiming it is vandalism when it is discussed clearly on the talk page is not helpful. I will answer your points below:

:Not at all. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is clearly defined. There is obviously no database stating whether an individual source is reliable or not, you have to look at it and see whether it merits inclusion. A quick look at [16] will help explain why the Blink research is of no value. And yes, Policy Exchange is partisan and biased, but this page is about Policy Exchange, not about Blink. As such what Policy Exchange has said belongs on this page - what Blink says only belongs here if it is notable and reliable. Given the lack of coverage of Blink's claims and the quite obviously poor quality of its research it has no place for it.

Who has said it is of "no value"? Only you. The link to the Wikipedia article on Potential for Inaccuracy applies to all polls not just internet-based ones - this is why I suspect your motives because you prevaricate. I have copied the external link where the 1990 Trust report was quoted in the press to the Wiki article and you conveniently ignore this and delete it. You claim internet polling is not reliable, yet YouGov, Harris Online and Channel 4 and The Economist clearly use these techniques and are highly respected. You have to move past this obsession of decrying a report because you don't like its results. Lack of coverage? It was quoted in a UK mainstream national newspaper (the external link has been provided but you deleted it as I said) and it is enough in Wikipedia to be quoted to qualify as a RS. Please note - referencing to just one RS in Wikipedia is enough to have it included as properly sourced - there are thousands of Wikipedia articles which have insertions on this basis. Again your claims that lack of coverage is poor quality research is a nonsense and simply your view. Research is inherently a subjective exercise. That is why it differs so much in output and people are free to decide what to believe. Therefore the proper balanced approach is to present differing perspectives and let the reader decide. You constantly throw mud at the 1990 Report and hope it sticks but this is simply untenable.

:I imagine neither Populus nor Policy Exchange bothered because the accusations received no coverage and are not from a particularly credible source. Populus would obviously have an interest in defending their professional reputation as impartial pollsters, given especially that they are not likely to get any more income from Policy Exchange and have no particular reason to be biased, and would have done so were there anything that needed saying. I have not even seen evidence that either party is even AWARE of Blink's claims, so it's a deliberate slander on their names to imply that they failed to respond to something they probably never even saw.

Policy Exchange was well aware - on the version you reverted, there was a link to the query that the 1990 Trust raised with Policy Exchange which it declined to answer. Your claims re Populus are laughable. I am sure if they were concerned they would have made their opinion clear. It clearly doesn't bother them but it does seem to exercise you. You unfortunately are not a RS.

:"The 1990 Trust believe their new survey". 1990 Trust and Blink are one and the same, if you are not aware of that, then you need to be more informed before you comment.

:BTW, this statement rather reinforces the fact that their research is worthless: "new survey reflects the real views of Muslims, and that other polls have attempted to generate headlines claiming more support for terrorism than is actually the case."

Again "worthless" in your eyes but not in the view of others. I found it valuable and I would like to see it retained in the interests of impartiality. Both insertions imply balance. Yours is unbalanced. I am not at all certain that 1990 Trust and Blink are the same thing - the report is authored by the 1990 Trust and that is who I am quoting here. It really isn't relevant anyway.

:OTHER POLLS? The Policy Exchange poll was published AFTER this one, so even 1990 Trust say that their survey results are at odds to other polls (and not just Policy Exchange). So we know that PE's poll + a number of other polls say one thing, and 1990 Trust says another, and we've already seen that the 1990T's research is worthless. So given by 1990 Trust's own admission, at least three polls showing one thing, and only their bizarre 'research' showing another, how can it possibly be valid to say "The Policy Exchange findings were also at wide variance with other studies". Utter nonsense, deliberately intended to mislead, pushed by people like you, whose agenda is transparently obvious.

No you have said it is utterly worthless - no-one else - not good enough I'm afraid. If 3 other polls show the same thing, quote them. As a compromise you can say the study was at "variance with another study" but given almost all academic research/critique supports the 1990 report, it needs to stay. You say my agenda is obvious? Is it? I find your wholesale desire to airbrush anything remotely critical highly partisan. Using words like "utter nonsense" and "worthless" without any supporting referencing by competent authorities really reveals an a priori position I'm afraid.

:I do stand by my comment that 1990 Trust's report is utterly appalling. It is nothing to do with margins of error, but their sampling technology. They sent questionnaires to MPACUK and other Muslim websites. How representative of Muslims in the UK do you think this is? Not in the slightest, quite obviously. Websites tend to attract the more interested, be disproportionately old, etc. I am not a professional pollster, but I do know enough to see a piece of research that has no value when I see one.

I think this really says it all. Who are you to decide for everyone else what is reliable? Internet polling is widely used by professional organisations (I mention them above) and you don't like the results so you delete it? Again, if you think the poll was not representative, where is your evidence? You are just not getting it. This has to be evidence-based. As you say, you are no pollster, and so you are not in a position to provide authoritative comment.

:Chatham House is not a right-wing political thinktank in the vein of Policy Exchange, in fact they are non-aligned and currently have a picture of Gordon Brown on their front page!

Not sure Gordon Brown is relevant here. The Telegraph also has photos of him - he is the PM after all. In the comments above you did not reference your statement to the Telegraph (hardly unbiased itself given Charles Moore is Chairman of Policy Exchange) - you made it an absolute statement.

:You are imagining things in your zeal to prove some kind of conspiracy to promote Policy Exchange (rather odd when I added greater detail on their forgery). I never said that!!!!!! I said it was the most influential RIGHT-WING thinktank.

Actually what you said was this: "As I said, Policy Exchange are still a very important right-wing thinktank, easily the most important and influential in Britain today." It is not clear at all that you were referring to "right-wing" think tanks or "think-tanks" in general. It could be understood either way.

:I think when you go to the lengths to start counting the proprtion of reports that relate to Islam, be it 1%, 3% or 5%, it shows the weakness of your argument. Policy Exchange has not stopped its work, Steve Norris did not say "shit, I'm going to dissociate myself from these guys, and cancel my work with them", when this hit the headlines. They are still working, their reports are still getting coverage, and life is going on.

The percentage is not really relevant. What is relevant is how much coverage its reports on Muslims get vis-a-vis its other reports - are you seriously claiming they are equal? Of course they are not. Who suggested that Policy Exchange would stop working for other people and what does Steven Norris have to do with this article? I suggest you are getting a little side-tracked in your passionate defence. Their reports are still getting coverage maybe, but nothing like the reports on Musims have done? Have they?

:Who said it didn't matter? I have given full coverage to the forgery accusations, expanding them substantially. What I did object to is rewriting history on the first report and making it out that there was a big controversy about it.

There may not have been a controversy on the scale of the second report, but there was a debate. This should be clearly stated to the reader. You repeat your mantra about the worthlessness of the 1990 Report but you can provide no evidence from anyone other than yourself to support you view. Not even Policy Exchange themselves. It seems much more than me you are pushing an agenda, especially with your intemperate language.

If you think there is no criticism in this article, you clearly have not read it (well, we've seen that several times already in your comments, so it's hardly a surprise). Two points, on which I will leave you: #1 the first report was not controversial; 2# Policy Exchange does a lot of research, and the next time they produce a study on welfare or transport, it will very likely make its way into Conservative Party (and hence potentially law after the net election) policy - they are not defined by those forgery accusations.

It is not a question of criticism or compliment. It is a question of balance of neutrality. You are wrong to say the first point was not controversial, at the very least it attracted robust and credible criticism which is worthy of mention. Second point, I have no idea about much less do I care. It is again OR and may reveal some of your aspirations - in the weeks after the Newsnight report, Policy Exchange's credibility was severely dented and I read all about it in almost all the online editions of the UK newspapers. Yet you claim this is an irrelevance - it is not. It is well-referenced and is worthy of mention.

Just to add: The Sun today, story, about Policy Exchange report. It's got nothing to do with Islam!!!!! [17] The fact that Policy Exchange had high-profile people working on the report, and a high public profile generally,has not been wiped out by the BBC Newsnight investigation. There are a large number of other Media references to their non-Islam research, and none of them even mention the Islam stuff.

Excellent I suggest you make that point and insert in the article. Throughout this discussion page you claim people are "pushing agendas" - I suggest you read all your comments. The rapidity with which you respond and revert and destroy other people's work, the shrill language you employ and the emotional tone of your response implies a very strong partisan stance to me. Please try and see it from someone else's point of view. The fact you deleted the bias template is highly suspicious - clearly there is a disagreement over balance/neutrality, yet you seek to stifle this as well! This is highly worrying

Please don't however destroy other people's work and engage in pointless reversions/edit wars. You parrot the same lines but you produce no objective evidence in support for your most contentious claims.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, you destroyed a large amount of work. You have not made any attempt to preserve it. You have not contributed anything to the article other than a povcheck tag. If you want to add a povcheck tag, I have no issue with that, what I have an issue with is wiping out a week's worth of progress on this article.

Secondly, this poll nonsense is getting tedious. Re the 1990 Trust publication you're so obsessed with; they say "Many mainstream polls have shown higher rates of support for extremism. The difference is explained by the way questions are phrased."

This is clear acknowledgment that it is the 1990 Trust report that is different from everyone else, and that is at variance from mainstream polls (which for us constitute a reliable source, because mainstream is reliable, even if you think it is a zio-con conspiracy against Islam or some such).

So it's absurd to report their criticisms when they say themselves that their results are different from everyone else's (and btw, just to clarify, there's nothing wrong with internet polling, what's wrong is sending questionnaires to the readers of self-identifying Islamic websites, because website readers are always going to be the most interested and dedicated and far from representative of the whole population)!!!! See other reports broadly concurring with the PE one [18] [19] And others, but frankly I am wasting my time arguing with a brick wall that insists a useless poll by an organisation with no valid methodology should be trumpeted in here over the numerous others conducted in a proper fashion in accordance with valid sampling techniques and by professional pollsters.

I am frustrated with your obsession with your insistence on pushing the same line even when I have shown time and time again (and users, i.e. lo2u, who don't have the obsession with Islam vs. Policy Exchange) that it is invalid. You are wasting people's time. It is time for you to move on,because at this point you just look like an unreasonable POV pusher determined to push your unreliable worthless links despite having been shown the error - once inserting "the poll was at wide variance with other studies" might look like simple oversight, but numerous times despite having been explained why it is wrong starts to look like deliberate obstinance and article-wrecking. 82.31.164.67 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You continue to revert and call me a "vandal" twice even though I have clearly given full reasons for the changes I have made, you are therefore in breach of Wiki policies on civility. This knee-jerk reversion has got to stop.

In an attempt to arrive at a compromise, I have only made 2 changes to your version - one on the political stance, leaving your comments in but also including a counterpoint for NPOV and the other editing the section on the Living Apart Together report where you claim there is no controversy/debate but there clearly is. All sources are referenced to RS (ie a mainstream media source considered reliable everwhere else in Wikipedia so they should be held to be reliable here).

Your rubbishing of the 1990 Trust Report just won't wash. You have tried to criticise it by throwing mud at it but you have only your POV in support. This is OR not NPOV. Your insertions have been left in, you should have the respect/courtesy to leave those of others in as well. You claim the 1990 Report is not relevant here but it is as the 1990 Trust directly challenged Policy Exchange on its findings but received no response - hence its relevance here. The findings of the 1990 Trust report were also quoted in the Guardian. I too am frustrated with your pushing of an agenda but it is you who is arguing against the consensus not me. Your explanations are indeed numerous but not at all convincing. That is why we are stuck where we are. Again you say "worthless" and point out my "error" - but this is only your POV I have argued convincingly why you are wrong. Let me repeat - you are not a professional pollster - you say so yourself so how can you judge the quality of any poll definitively?

Please stop attacking everyone else for pushing an agenda when the overwhelming consensus on this article is against you. Try to compromise, and avoid calling other well-intentioned editors "vandals". This is rude and unfounded.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no 'overwhelming consensus', in fact the last person before you to comment, lo2u, said that my version was according with his in almosty every respect. He is in fact the only registered wikipedia user to have commented.

I have thrown mud at the 1990 Trust Report I agree, and I think any reasonable person would see that the mud has stuck, but as I said already, the fact that they themselves say their 'research' disagrees with that of polls in the "mainstream" is quite sufficient for us not to mention it here. No mud required, they damn themselves, they say they are at variance with everyone else, job done.

I am glad that you have this time finally decided not to revert everything else in your zeal to push this stuff, and are being somewhat more constructive, but it would have been better if this had been your starting position, and moreover I cannot accept that if you push the same line enough times it somehow becomes correct.

I am not willing to accept a distortion of reality on this poll report: it was well-covered in the media, the media did not question it, that's all there is to it. Criticism of it by a few minor sources must not be allowed to distort the reality of how it was actually perceived. 81.157.176.8 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is time for you to move on,because at this point you just look like an unreasonable POV pusher determined to push your unreliable worthless links despite having been shown the error - once inserting "the poll was at wide variance with other studies" might look like simple oversight, but numerous times despite having been explained why it is wrong starts to look like deliberate obstinance and article-wrecking."

Just for the record - these are not "my links" and I did not make the original insertions. As you will note those edits were carried out by UK-based editors (look at their IP address). I think (if you read carefully) I said I was based in Turkey. I think in your frustration that others might have a different point of view to yours, you have started confusing all the editors. It's not helpful to become emotive.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You re-inserted the links several times, and have defended them vociferously. They are 'yours' in that sense.

As you will notice, an IP doesn't mean very much. If you really don't want to be confused, the best bet is to get a wikipedia account and establish yourself as an editor so you have some kind of track record. 81.157.176.8 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You re-inserted the links several times, and have defended them vociferously. They are 'yours' in that sense. As you will notice, an IP doesn't mean very much. If you really don't want to be confused, the best bet is to get a wikipedia account and establish yourself as an editor so you have some kind of track record.

I think if you wish to accuse others of not having an account, maybe you should get one yourself first. You are singularly incapable of accepting a different viewpoint and your emotive comments reflect an unhealthy oversensitivity and/or bias. The links are not "mine" and I have only just reinstated them. If you wish to continue with conspiracy theories I suggest you provide evidence to back vaguely eccentric comments like "an IP address doesn't mean much", clearly it does or it wouldn't be used here for monitoring.

:There is no 'overwhelming consensus', in fact the last person before you to comment, lo2u, said that my version was according with his in almosty every respect. He is in fact the only registered wikipedia user to have commented.

Only as you seem to be obsessed with the article and are editing it in real time. One has to wonder if you are being paid to do so. Look at the history of the article, not just the discussion, where several constructive edits have been made by several people, most of which you appear to delete. You will note Lou makes the very valid comment that all recent "unconstructive" edits appear to come from you (although you disclaim this).

:I have thrown mud at the 1990 Trust Report I agree, and I think any reasonable person would see that the mud has stuck, but as I said already, the fact that they themselves say their 'research' disagrees with that of polls in the "mainstream" is quite sufficient for us not to mention it here. No mud required, they damn themselves, they say they are at variance with everyone else, job done.

No - I am sorry you are not the sole "criterion" of "reasonable". The citation meets all the criteria for Wiki inclusion. Your first argument was than internet polling wasn't acceptable (disproven), your second was that it was not given national coverage (disproven) now you go back to your subjective assessment of "mainstream". In this whole discussion page, it has only been you who seeks to discredit the report. I repeat you need evidence or it is OR. You also fail to address the point that one RS is sufficient in Wikipedia for inclusion and that a national newspaper in the UK is clearly accepted as such an RS.

:I am glad that you have this time finally decided not to revert everything else in your zeal to push this stuff, and are being somewhat more constructive, but it would have been better if this had been your starting position, and moreover I cannot accept that if you push the same line enough times it somehow becomes correct.

I suggest you take your own advice - not much else to say.

:I am not willing to accept a distortion of reality on this poll report: it was well-covered in the media, the media did not question it, that's all there is to it. Criticism of it by a few minor sources must not be allowed to distort the reality of how it was actually perceived. 81.157.176.8 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This type of arrogance is in consonance with your original commenting. Now you continually parrot the same line. You are not the only editor on Wikipedia and what you are prepared or not prepared to accept is only one person's view. If you continually revert, you will be blocked under 3RR. I suggest you pay attention to other standpoints.

It is time for you to move on,because at this point you just look like an unreasonable POV pusher determined to push your unreliable worthless links despite having been shown the error - once inserting "the poll was at wide variance with other studies" might look like simple oversight, but numerous times despite having been explained why it is wrong starts to look like deliberate obstinance and article-wrecking.

Actually if you had read my comments properly, you would have seen I suggested an edit to say it was at variance with "another study" to make the point clearer. I am sorry but you need to really get a grip and understand that your view of the world is not shared by others and your edits will be edited again by others who disagree. I really suggest you get used to finding impartial properly sourced criticism of content you don't like (specific to that content) before making grandiose ex cathedra statements as to what is reasonable and what is not in your life.

78.175.130.81 (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic stance

"It is well known for it's right-wing and anti-islamic stance."

Is there any justification for the "anti-Islamic" comment. It has published a couple of reports (discussed here) about alleged extremism in certain Mosques, and Islam and multiculteralism. That does not constitute "anti-Islamic", and there are voices making the same points within the Muslim community. Also - I'm not sure that "is well know for" constitutes a sufficient Wikipedia citation :).

I'm not editing the article myself as it is my first visit to a controversial piece, but perhaps it should be done.

86.111.168.25 (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Matt Wardman

Funding

There is no mention as to where the funding for this "influential think-tank" comes from. To me this is the single most important thing I want to know about any such group. These groups require significant funding and show the real vested interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.21.57 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section on the fact that Policy Exchange are very unclear about where their funding comes from. I agree, it's an extremely important point and I can't see the motivation for being so opaque on this issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.59 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Policy Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917060653/http://www.newstatesman.com:80/200610090013 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200610090013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090408094257/http://www.policyexchange.org.uk:80/people/Alumni.cgi to http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/people/Alumni.cgi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708135907/http://charlotteleslie.com/2009/01/publications/ to http://charlotteleslie.com/2009/01/publications/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716140210/http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/news/news.cgi?id=1603 to http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/news/news.cgi?id=1603

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Policy Exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111122205233/http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/pages/TheColinCramphornMemorialLectures.cgi to http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/pages/TheColinCramphornMemorialLectures.cgi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120301145558/http://www.lmei.soas.ac.uk/events/mel.cfm?editionid=54 to http://www.lmei.soas.ac.uk/events/mel.cfm?editionid=54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 09:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional tone

Much of this article seems to be written from Policy Exchange's point of view, using their own "in-universe" language; for example, the use of the pejorative term "lawfare" to mean "prosecution under human rights laws". Negative elements, on the other hand, seem to have been pushed down the article and minimized. The whole article needs a thorough review and to be edited to meet the WP:NPOV policy. — The Anome (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:‎Colt .55 can discuss proposed changes here

For example: why would we add the following text, using the Charity Commission website and www.manchester.ac.uk as the sources?
Research by Liam Barlow has found they receive funding from the Government of Pakistan.
As per Colt .55's most recent edit? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As per descriptions of previous edits; your edits are deliberately and consistently inserting bias into the article.

As per discussions on this talk page from 2008, it is bias and misleading to include the words that "it refuses to disclose the sources of its funding". You don't use a citation, and the section on funding, contains 3 different examples of disclosures of PE's funding.

It is outdated, misleading and bias to say it "is ranked as one of the least transparent think tanks in the UK". You don't use a citation, and the citation you refer to as included below, is (i) 8-years old, and (ii) a report by a think tank with left-wing bias.

I believe your opinions you are trying to shoehorn in to the opening summary of PE is against Wikipedia's principles of objectivity.

Many other users have reverted your bias edits, but you keep obsessively adding them back in. Colt .55 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)