Talk:Chatham House

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chatham House article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Nickcapeling (talk · contribs) has been paid by Chatham House. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosure on userpage.
Rafaellacj (talk · contribs) has been paid by Chatham House. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosure on userpage.

Ref for pro-establishment

Although it has been alleged that Chatham House reflects a pro-establishment view of the world

This really does need to be sourced however common a belief it might be

Added a reference (British foreign policy establishment). Thincat 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo caption

Reagan and Thatcher are described as 'at right'. The conventional English expression is 'on the right', which describes not only their photo position, but also their political position. Pamour (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016114958/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-204888-gul-winner-of-prestigious-chatham-house-award.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-204888-gul-winner-of-prestigious-chatham-house-award.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rafaellacj and User:Nickcapeling both work for Chatham House

Hi

I think this article needs someone independent to review it, two major contributors User:Rafaellacj and User:Nickcapeling both work for Chatham House (see their user pages). Currently the article currently reads a bit like an advert....

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone help review this? My contribution was to bring the page up to date in terms of reports from Chatham House over the past couple of years and to remove an old citation which no longer exists online. I don't feel these changes are controversial but I would prefer this to be resolved one way or another rather than have this notice posted onto it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcapeling (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the publications even belong on Wikipedia outside of perhaps a bibliography section? I am thinking that the publications need to be shown as notable, not merely as existing. AmplifyWiki (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I have boldly removed them Lyndaship (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate the changes made, but please can the page be reverted back so it does not include the messages about paid content etc at the top. I am very happy to submit suggested changes for consideration instead of direct edits, but i have been waiting for months for one of the wiki editors to revert the page back. Please can someone help urgently? comment added by Nickcapeling 17:01, 04 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Chatham-house-logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated logo

Hi all, I made some edits to the article – mainly updates about the old director Robin Niblett and adding details about how long the journals have been running for. I noticed the logo is the old one. I think they changed it in the last couple of years. I have a feeling their brand guidelines are public, I can have a look for them. As a relative newbie though, what are the main considerations to replace the image (e.g. sourcing, format, quality, copyright)? I'm guessing there must be an article on this – I would welcome a steer! KTnow (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a tutorial which may help. [1] Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

This article is largely built on primary sources. I counted about 60 out of a total of 81 sources. The exact number depends on how we treat Carrington's book which was published by Chatham House and the International Affairs journal which is based at Chatham House. While primary sources may be suitable for some statements about Chatham House, point 5 of our primary source policy says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". I have added a tag. Burrobert (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be any criticisms of Chatham House other than 'Russia designated Chatham House as an "undesirable organisation"'. Not only criticisms, but just mere disagreements with it and its publications. If it is willing to criticize or dispute points of others, such as in its Myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia, there should be sentences and passages about others disagreeing with the Chatham House works as well, and opportunities for those that are being disputed to respond back. 172.56.235.154 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]