Talk:Euractiv

Giving the page a legitimate feel

Hi there, I've been working on this page, and giving a certain level of legitimacy.

I'm looking to give it the same feel as you might find on Le Monde or BBC World News.

Can anyone make some additions/edits?

Thanks

Boson (talk Rjensen talk

Freddie

Introduction: "independent" ?

I have made some research to find out if 'EurActiv' ist independent

(as it is claimed in the introduction:

EurActiv is an independent European media platform specialising in the online publication of articles focusing on European policymaking, founded in 1999 by Christophe Leclercq. It is present across 12 EU capitals.[2] [3] )

result: nothing. Who are the stakeholders ? Are there strawmen ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This page might be subject to corporate whitewashing.

Hi all, I’ve noticed the Controversy section of this article, which discusses criticism of Euractiv’s editor-in-chief and includes sourced commentary from Amnesty International and Politico, has been repeatedly removed or pared down, often without a clear policy-based rationale. Multiple IP editors involved in these removals (IP: 87.65.38.212) appears to geolocate to Brussels, which is where Euractiv is headquartered. If this is an undisclosed conflict of interest (COI) or editing connected to the organization itself, it may violate WP:COI and WP:PAID editing policies. I have reinstated the section with improvements to sourcing, tone, and neutrality — including a link to the UN’s definition of hate speech to address previous concerns. I welcome feedback on the current wording and am happy to work collaboratively to ensure compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Thanks, 2A02:A03F:AEDF:2E00:C5A:7105:40B4:65CD (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, not “whitewashing.” This is a transient dispute sourced mainly to Amnesty International’s own advocacy commentary plus a brief Playbook mention, not sustained independent secondary coverage establishing a significant institutional controversy about Euractiv.

Serious labels such as “hate speech” are highly contentious and should not be presented prominently in Wikipedia’s voice without exceptional sourcing (WP:BLP-style caution). Linking to a generic UN definition does not verify that this specific column meets that threshold (WP:V).

Moreover, the underlying claim in the column — that antisemitic attitudes can be disproportionately prevalent in certain Muslim/migrant sub-populations — is supported by reputable empirical research in Belgium. For example, recent studies on polarisation and antisemitism among Belgian youth report substantially higher agreement with antisemitic stereotypes among Muslim-identified pupils compared with non-Muslims.

In that context, presenting Amnesty’s condemnation as a standalone “Controversy” section risks giving disproportionate weight to a disputed advocacy interpretation rather than an established encyclopedic issue. ~2026-66022-2 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)