Talk:Education Policy Institute

Rfc Do we use the Rt Hon honorific in general usage?

Do we use the Rt Hon honorific in general usage? --wintonian ^talk 14:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am aware it is to be used when addressing the envelope/ opening the letter but I don't think we use it in the body of the letter (or other document)? I have had a quick look at this discussion but I don't have the infinite amount of time seemingly needed to read it all to see if the answer is there or not. --wintonian ^talk 14:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really what requests for comment are for. The answer to your question is no, per MOS:HONORIFIC. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with A/H; the term "Rt. Hon" honorific is a well-respected honorific; The ICLQ (a Law journal) addresses this, and it is a Cambridge-recognized publication, but I will defer to precedent on this. badboyjamie talk 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As A/H pointed out, the MOS is pretty explicit. It actually uses "Right Honorable" as its example of titles not to put into general use. Marechal Ney (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CentreForum. 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/20080514231043/http://www.centreforum.org:80/publications/publications.html to http://www.centreforum.org/publications/publications.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of some editors

I'm not sure about the neutrality of some of the editors of this article in the past. It doesn't take very long to look through the list to see some patterns, especially from some IP addresses and associated articles. Anyway, I'll leave it for now, but just wanted to write this here for the record.Seaweed (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Relationship to Liberal Democrats

CentreForum clearly has strong links to the Liberal Democrats political party. It is, however, indepedent of that party in a legal sense. In fact that is very common for think-tanks and quite normal. I hope to partly rewrite some of the content on this article to better articulate the relationships that CentreForum has with the Liberal Democrats.Seaweed (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged independence

I do not know what the legal definition of 'independence' might be for a think tank, or even if there is one. But it is quite plain that the EPI is closely linked to the Liberal Democrats, through its origins and its principal personnel and indeed also to Blairite figures in both Tory and Labour Parties who share their policies.It contains, for instance, no significant figure at any level (if at all) who favours academic selection or opposes academisation. What is more the EPI received corporate donations of almost £300,000 in its last recorded year. Given its governance, it seems more than possible that these donations came from supporters of Academy trusts.The claim of 'independence' which relies solely on self-certification by persons linked to the EPI, is therefore untenable and should be removed. I have attempted to correct it once, and my correction has been reverted without any attempt to acknowledge its truth. I shall wait for those who patrol this site to correct it themselves. If they do not,I shall correct the inaccurate statement made on this entry. If reverted again,I shall then take it to Wikipedia arbitration. Shall we say 15th December? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the word "independence" is not necessary very helpful with this article. Education Policy Institute is independent in that sense that control lies within itself. It is a Charity registered in England and Wales with Trustees made up of individuals. They control the organisation. Having said that I'm going to take the word "independent" out of the opening paragraph, because I don't think it contributes very much. Seaweed (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, regarding your comment about "EPI received corporate donations of almost £300,000 in its last recorded year", I've just read the accounts for March 2016 for EPI and the income from "Corporate Support" was £44,001 compared to £298,830 in 2015, which presumably is the year you refer to. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion whether the source of those monies matter to independence. EPI received that funding as unrestricted income - i.e. the trustees ultimately control how it is spent in accordance with EPI's objects, not the donors wishes. Seaweed (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop adding unsourced content about EPI and its independence or lack thereof, from the Lib Dems. Do not cite its own website for content about this, either. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Funding

Is it possible to have a section on the the funding? If the information is not available (as is often the case with similar thinktanks) that should be highlighted. Most readers want to know who is paying for such organisations. 77.100.178.145 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)