Talk:Europe Business Assembly

COI editing

The recent edits by 93.76.208.161 have reverted and this is a place to discuss. -- GreenC 23:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The company issued an official statement and it should be included www.ebaoxford.co.uk Truth and honour (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you actually think you can change facts to have them your way? Just by being stubborn about it? You are on the Wikipedia radar, so don't expect that you can tailor "your" article to fit your agenda any longer. You have a glaringly obvious conflict of interest: WP:COI, which you are obligated to disclose, and which bars you from editing your company's article.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This article lucks objectivity and therefore must be changed to show opinion of different parties Truth and honour (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Official statements from companies have no place on Wikipedia, certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. Adding a defence speech directed to the reader is the opposite of making the article neutral or objective. As you are a representative of the company, you should not edit the article directly. State (briefly) what the issues are, here on the article talk page, and editors who are unaffiliated with the company can make an objective assessment. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for edit warring, also not coming here to discuss and glaring COI. Let me know if this recurs? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also semi'd it for a couple of weeks for recurring issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

TBy blocking the opposite opinion you break ethics of good journalism. People should hear both sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth and honour (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with journalism. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. You have already been invited to state your issues with the article, which is not the same as posting a long promotional text listing all the things you like about your company. Yet again: an "official statement" in the company's voice does not belong in any Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news or opinion site. Only subjects that have have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject are included on Wikipedia. Whether your company should even have an article is open to question, but I'll leave that to others to determine. The Times article is considered a reliable source, so material sourced from it is acceptable on Wikipedia. Edits coming from the company itself are considered conflict of interest edits, and are treated according to that policy, which I strongly encourage you to read, as you appear to have not taken it on board as yet. You are welcome to request edits to be made to the article on this talk page, but they are likely to be accepted only if they are sourced from a reputable news outlet or similar reliable source, not from the company. Just pasting your press release here is highly likely to be reverted, as Wikipedia is not a forum for you to argue the case. The source of any requested edits should be provided, including a link if online, or page number if hardcopy, so that the editor who looks at your requested edit can verify the material. Again, not a link to your website. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please include that The articles contains references to anonymous ex employees and the University of Oxford does not know Europe Business Assembly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth and honour (talk • contribs)

I added Although EBA advertised itself as being an Oxford institution, it has no relations with Oxford because that is what the source says. The source for Wikipedia purposes is The Times whom we consider reliable. Also Center for Investigative Reporting, South China Morning Post, Malay Mail, Yahoo! News, IBTimes, FMT News, etc.. -- GreenC 13:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Archives

External links in the citations and on this talk page have been archived in the appropriator place(s) in case they start 404ing. -- GreenC 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

Legitimate references are being removed to keep only narrow focus on accusations that EBA is award selling company.

We request that the legitimate references are kept. 109.87.30.112 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

THE REFERENCES STATING FACTS backed by the Companies House and Intellectual Property Office are being removed. This violates the rule of Wikipedia that anyone can edit provided that they have verified third party source. Both sources are third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth and honour (talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

Please change the following text The Europe Business Assembly (EBA) is an Oxford-based organisation selling what The Times has called "fake awards",[1] or what are more widely known as "vanity awards". EBA also runs the Oxford Academic Union and publishes the Socrates Almanac.

to

The Europe Business Assembly (EBA) is a legitimate company registered in the UK involved in Market research and public opinion polling https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03964500. The article The Times largely based on comments of anonymous ex-employees accusing EBA of selling "fake awards",[1] Oxford Dictionary defines word ‘fake’ as Oxford dictionary definition of FAKE is Not genuine; imitation or counterfeit https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fake.

I concider the previous information as subjectib Sin Fox (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You state that The Times article is "largely based on comments of anonymous ex-employees". What evidence do you have for this? Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information for what would be considered a suitable source. Edwardx (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read the article and in more than 5 instances it cites anonymous former employees/staff. This clearly looks like a rumour and therefore comes under questionable source (see definition below) with poor credibility. I ask that the article is amended with facts with references (not rumours)as per request below. Thank you.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth and honour (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Background

EBA was founded in 2000, by Ukrainian businessman Anton Savvov, and he runs it out of Oxford and Ukraine, along with his son Ivan Savvov.[1][2][3] By specifically referring to nationality of businessmen, the author of the article puts all Ukrainians in negative light, therefore violating the Independent Press Standards Organization’s the Editor’s code of practice (https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/#Accuracy) in point of Discrimination.

Activities

Over the past 17 years EBA has been organising international forums called the Summits of Leaders, which attended by international institutions such as University Degli Studi Di Brescia https://en.unibs.it/events/socrates-ceremony-and-summit-leaders-–-europe-business-assembly-prime-business-destinations-innovative-aspects-university-city-development

EBA offers the European Quality Award, Socrates International Award (for intellectual development of society), Best Enterprise Award, Best Manager of the Year Award, Rose of Paracelsus Award (medical practice and practitioners), Queen Victoria Commemorative Medal (corporate social responsibility), and The Name in Science Award.[4] The awards are presented in venues including Oxford Town Hall and the Institute of Directors in London, by EBA's director general John Netting, a former lecturer at Oxford Brookes University, with ceremonies including trumpeters, bagpipes, processions, and period costumes.[2] The Times states that EBA advertised itself as being an Oxford institution, however it uses photos from EBA website https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMWjoTXPum3J7xuWVVjGRPpR7othXtIziAiYlQW9DP5_mLcsKj0go0F7LIdRY06Xg?key=WVhrLW1DQ0w0aTFaUEJKanUtdkstTnVYdUdDamtB

in its article https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-university-in-fake-awardsfarce-fh9876jnw
without referencing EBA copyright. According to Companies House it is based in Oxford https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03964500 it has no relations with the University of Oxford.[1]

A spokesman for the University of Oxford said: “We can confirm that the Europe Business Assembly is not affiliated or otherwise linked to the University of Oxford. We have no further comment on this company.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-university-in-fake-awardsfarce-fh9876jnw

The EBA also runs the Oxford Academic Union, with membership costing £980, and publishes the Socrates Almanac.[2]

Criticism

In 2013, the Center for Investigative Reporting found that companies and individuals in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia had been buying awards from EBA for many years and claiming that they were "outstanding results achieved in a prestigious competition".[5] CIN reported that "winners pay for the awards and participation in the ceremonies", with fees of up to €11,000 for participation in a ceremony, and an award costing about around €7,300.[5] EBA was also investigated by Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).[6] In 2015, an Indonesian magazine criticized EBA for selling "meaningless accolades to egotistical officials, especially those from countries notorious for corruption". The report noted at least two Indonesian officials had purchased the "nonsense awards".[7] In 2017, two Malaysian councils were criticized for buying awards from EBA in 2013 and 2014. Malaysian local legislator Muhammad Farid Saad equated the acquisition of the honors to "buying fake academic degrees”.[8] Also in 2017, Chinese media reported that China's state-run Longyuan Power Group had "allegedly paid for the made-up award of Best Enterprise" in 2011 from EBA. The South China Morning Post said the scam traded on the University of Oxford’s name to sell fake awards to companies.[9] In July 2017, The Times reported that the "University of Oxford's academic reputation is being exploited by Ukrainian businessmen selling millions of pounds worth of fake awards and honours".[1] The University did not confirm that its reputation is being exploited. A spokesman for the University of Oxford said: “We can confirm that the Europe Business Assembly is not affiliated or otherwise linked to the University of Oxford. We have no further comment on this company.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-university-in-fake-awardsfarce-fh9876jnw

Suggesting addition to WikiProjects

I find it strange that this article is not included in any WikiProjects, yet I can't find any good WikiProjects to include this article in. Anyone have a good idea of where this could go? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes -- GreenC 12:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BUSINESS suggests itself also. — fortunavelut luna 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Page is semi-protected again to stop the current rapid-fire deletion of content by an IP. There may (or may not) be scope for some modification to the current entirely negative presentation of the company, but it needs to be associated with reliable sources. Hopefully the IP will now come here with some sources to support their proposed changes. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Translation

It would be great to see this article translated into Ukrainian, Chinese, Indonesian and Malayan. To have coverage in languages where EBA does business. -- GreenC 19:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Europe Business Assembly is not correct

Hello and happy new year. I noticed that the article is about Europe_Business_ Assemblies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Business_Assembly) is respond to reality. I also noticed that some people tried to change the article to false information. The reason you have blocked an article for change is that vandals. I found information that is true I guess- https://nagolos.com.ua/news_/europe-business-assembly-proveli-v-oksforde-debaty-na-temu-budushchego-razvitiya-meditsiny-i-obrazovaniya-1668 ( but this article is in Russian)

I have a lot of evidence in favor of this article:

I ask you to change the article, or give access to change the article to correct the text. I am a simple user and I also condemn vandalism, and I want to help Wikipedia be honest and accurate. I am for peace and free information. I wish you and wikipedia success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Briony (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You did not suggest any changes. A spot check of 14 of the sources above did not yield anything that is relevant for the article or appropriate as a reference; what, exactly, are you proposing to add or change? --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to consider this version:https://drive.google.com/file/d/17j5Ds2Dq-O-U-95UbLr33VzlWXMbcuFC/view?usp=drivesdk-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Briony (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please look at the response given by Yamla in the unblock request at User talk:David Best Reader. Your proposed text is the exact same text that was added by that user, so either you are the same person (evading your block) or someone else acting on behalf of the organisation. Wikipedia reports and summarises relevant information that is published in reliable sources. You could use your proposed text on your own website, but Wikipedia is not interested. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I took the text from there, but I personally checked everything by myself and found evidence. And I have no connection with that user or with other vandals! I will write a new article with correct information from proven text . Ok? Sergio Briony (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean *from proven sources. Sergio Briony (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Assumption from a third party"

[1] - Wikipedia is a secondary-source ("third party") based Encyclopedia (WP:SECONDARY). We simply report what people say. The problem is not Wikipedia, it is the source. I suggest if you have a problem with this source speak with them directly and have them correct or remove it, we will do the same. We follow what sources say. Until then, the Telegraph is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian versions

The articles on EBA in the Ukrainian and Russian wikis appear to have been turned into advertising for the company. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Philafrenzy,  Done. Russian version is cleared from advertising. --Mitte27 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  + several Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

  RIA Novosti about The Academic Union Oxford [2]

  Dzerkalo Tyzhnia about Poltava National Technical University and "fake awards"[3]

  uk:АТН about Kharkiv Metro and "fake awards"[4]

--Mitte27 (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Great work! You deserve an award, a real one. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Use of deprecated source

GreenC has readded The Sun here.

So, per WP:BURDEN - why is this deprecated source a strong source - indeed, an apparently irreplaceable source - for this claim? "I like it" probably isn't sufficient, in the face of the strong consensus that the Sun should be actively discouraged from being used in any article. Is this Sun journalist a particularly expert source on this question? If so, has he really never said this anywhere else? - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@GreenC: - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

For what is being cited specifically Other countries that buy awards include the Middle East and Russia .. where people think money can buy you credentials .. is sourced in The Sun to a quote by a former EBA staffer originally published in The Times behind a paywall thus The Sun is a useful proxy, and because it is sourcing its information from The Times it is reliable. -- GreenC 17:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So use the original source The Times, which is an RS, and not The Sun, which is deprecated. Even the Sun's reprints from RSes are not RSes by proxy, and they happily mangle quotes for their convenience. "Paywall" is not listed as an exception to the RS guideline.

Where is the Times source, which you're claiming credibility for the deprecated source from? If you're claiming that source as justification for the claim, surely you can cite it.

I note you're not attributing the claim's alleged usefulness to the journalist you're naming - but now to someone quoted by a different paper, which the journalist you're naming lifted the quote from. Can The Sun be trusted to lift quotes reliably either? I'm pretty sure it can't.

We should never be citing a controversial claim to The Sun, which is what you're doing here. You still don't have an RS for the claim. Is there literally no RS in the world for the claim, just the deprecated source? - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you're now attributing the source of the quotes that were lifted. Can you verify that the quotes were lifted accurately? - David Gerard (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an alternative source for the same material where they say:

"Potential award-winners are targeted by EBA, with a focus on countries deemed to be more receptive to paying for an award. One former employee said: “We were asked to focus on areas where people would buy. The Middle East, eastern Europe and Russia . . . where the idea that money buys you credentials is still there.” " It's parasitical of The Times but looks reliable to me as run by QS and attributed to their editor. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

topuniversities.com is probably not an RS, though at least it's not literally deprecated like The Sun.

This is why the insistence on The Sun is bizarre. There are non-Sun sources for the claim. GreenC is literally claiming there is a better source - a solid RS, in fact - then not putting it in! - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are forgetting or purposefully misrepresenting what I said for the sake of argument? I said the The Times source is behind a paywall and the The Sun is a useful proxy (for WP:V purposes). Since Phil found a slightly less objectionable source use that, I'm not stuck on The Sun only easy verification. And include the Times source along with it (already used elsewhere). -- GreenC 18:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sun is a useful proxy You've checked the quote, and that this in fact holds? It doesn't look like you have. It's been a couple of days and rounds of discussion now, and you still haven't produced the Times source that supposedly justifies the deprecated source. You don't meet WP:BURDEN - which is policy - by claiming a good source exists, and that a deprecated source is a good proxy for it, without this being a verifiable claim in itself. You've spent a couple of days now visibly not producing a non-deprecated source. Please don't replace the claim until you have a source for it that's actually a source - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Philafrenzy for the actual source - David Gerard (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You should make an attempt to replace The Sun cites. They are often of this type (quoting other reliable sources) and outright removal makes it difficult for other editors. -- GreenC 15:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You should not add a Sun source when your only excuse is claiming it's a quote from an RS that you spent two days making excuses rather than just adding instead - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one going around deleting sources without making an attempt to read them, understand them or replace them with a better source. -- GreenC 20:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sun is an absolutely unacceptable source, particularly for such contentious claims as these. We need to cite The Times directly. We may prefer non-paywalled sources where a reliable replacement exists, but there is no requirement for sources to be freely accessible or even available online, whereas there is a requirement for a source to be reliable for the fact which it is cited for. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It is too bad David Gerard who initially deleted The Sun citation didn't bother to read The Sun article or they might have replaced it with The Times, as you suggest. This is what happens when deleting sources on-sight without due diligence. In AfD we call it WP:BEFORE the same principals apply. There is also the policy WP:PRESERVE don't delete content without making an effort to save it. I made an effort to save it by restoring the The Sun source, there was some back and forth, and a compromise was reached thanks to Philafranzy. Gerard is making the ironic argument that since The Times is behind a paywall I probably had "not checked the source" and therefore could not use it ie. exactly the reason why I wanted to include The Sun because of the paywall problem verifying sources. My initial argument was that The Sun was reliable enough in this case because of its direct assertion to The Times, I still believe this is sufficient in combination with The Times paywalled source -- The Sun is not known for making-up stories attributed to other papers. However since we found a tertiary source that is good enough and problem solved The Sun is no longer there. This is all I have to say, further comment by me will be counter-productive. -- GreenC 03:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.