Talk:Open Britain

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

The opening section reads like a political manifesto and violates NPOV. Suggest its edited to be more neutral. Rather not have to reort to flagging it.

Outdated Information

Most of the information on this page is several years out of date.

PV Campaign Ltd no longer has significant control, with Mark James Kieran now controlling 75% of shares (companies house). Of all the directors listed on this wikipedia page, Mark Kieran is the only officer still registered on companies house – the rest have resigned (companies house, The Guardian).

The registered office address has changed to 22 St. Peters Street, Stamford, England, PE9 2PF (companies house).

Open Britain is also no longer considered to be mainly a "pro-European" group. The Guardian wrote in 2021 that, as Kieran was handed the reins in 2021, he set out to change Open Britain into a "wider campaigning organisation no longer devoted solely to the EU cause; instead it will focus on driving voter registration, pushing for electoral reform and standing up against racism" (The Guardian). It's been described more recently as a "democracy group" (Byline Times) and a "pro-democracy organisation" (PoliticsHome).

As of January 2025, Open Britain is on record as funding secretariat work for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections, which aims to "enhance the integrity of UK democracy by: replacing First Past the Post with a proportional electoral system; eliminating dark money and undemocratic influence from politics; countering disinformation in public discourse. The APPG's goal is to deliver clean and fair elections where all votes count" (register of APPGs).

I don't want to edit directly given my affiliation with the group, but it would great if these details could be brought up to date to reflect the significant changes the organisation has gone through. MattgallagherOB (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update of Open Britain article (COI declared)

Hello,

I have recently made a comprehensive update to the Open Britain article to reflect more current information and properly sourced content. I would like to declare a conflict of interest as I work with the organisation.

Please feel free to review the changes and provide any feedback or suggestions. I welcome collaboration to ensure the article remains neutral, accurate, and informative for all readers.

Thank you for your time and input.

— DemocracynetworkUK DemocracynetworkUK (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoseOpenBritain, I have reverted the changes which you should not have made. As a user with a declared PAID conflict of interest you should not edit the article yourself but should request that changes are made on your behalf using the edit request wizard. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to replace outdated "Open Britain" article (COI declared)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello,

I am requesting an update to the "Open Britain" Wikipedia article. I am affiliated with the organisation and have declared a Conflict of Interest (COI) on my user page and on the article’s Talk page.

The existing page is significantly outdated and no longer reflects the organisation’s structure, leadership, or campaigns post-2020.

I’ve prepared a fully sourced and neutral replacement draft, which you can find here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoseOpenBritain/Open_Britain_Draft

This version includes 13 references from reliable sources including The New Statesman, Mirror, Byline Times, Politics.co.uk, Companies House, FairVote UK, ActionStorm, and the organisation’s official website.

All citations follow Wikipedia formatting guidelines and the article has been written with a neutral tone. I welcome any edits, comments, or suggested improvements from the reviewing editors.

Thank you.

— RoseOpenBritain

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoseOpenBritain Hello there,

it would have been easier for you if the article hadn't been there, because there are experienced folks over there at articles for creation. Which is not to say that others are not experienced, it is that the AfC process is more organised.

I have reviewed the draft and I'm not impressed by how you were applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to your writing. So to start:

• It appears from the current article that you actually were incorporated in 2016 not 2020.
• Whenever possible, we explain the aims of advocacy groups through sources independent of them. This serves a couple of purposes. First, this is to make sure that your advocacy is actually notable enough that outside people have noticed it (the link provides an example for notability for an article, but to a lesser degree, this applies to any content). Secondly, this is to make sure that we cover it from a disinterested perspective and not from the point of view of the organisation itself. So the "Campaign Objectives" part is actually not very good. You may want to see articles such as Fairness Project or Referendum Party for examples of how these issues should be covered. It doesn't have to be as detailed but you should strive towards it.
• Stop the Rot - the New Statesman source is an opinion piece and as such is not usable for facts. As for the Mirror, surely you can find something better than a tabloid covering a naked image of BoJo. Nope.
• ActionStorm seems to be a platform for campaigners to post their petitions and raise funds for their issues, so it's basically citing itself. Pretty bad if you are trying to show that you matter.
• In Parliamentary work, only source 8 mentions Open Britain to any extent and even then the only thing you can claim is that they backed the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections but nothing more. Which I think isn't a very notable thing in and of itself given that there are hundreds of them.

All in all, from your whole effort the only thing that you can cite is that you have supported the group that intends to change the first-past-the-post vote to proportional representation. If you have better sources, for example good news articles that discuss you in detail, we could add some stuff. Unfortunately, your draft as it stands is mostly unworkable.  Not done

As a small digression, you say at your user page that you will "occasionally edit the organisation’s Wikipedia page to keep information up to date". As you may be aware, you basically shouldn't do that (it says "you are strongly discouraged" but take it as a prohibition, for your own good, because you don't want random editors to ask weird questions). If the only purpose will be to edit about the organisation, expect to only interact through the talk page. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not do the detailed review Szmenderowiecki did, just a quick glance was enough to tell me it's significantly worse than our existing article so they made the right decision in rejecting it. You either need to seriously revise it or better yet, start or more slowly make a proposal for the the addition or change of one or two paragraphs. Ensure you take all feedback on board especially about tone and our sourcing requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Follow-up edit request: Revised Open Britain draft

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Unclear request

Thank you for your previous feedback and for taking the time to review the draft.

I understand and respect Wikipedia’s standards on neutrality, reliable sourcing, and transparency from editors with a conflict of interest. That’s why I’ve been open about my affiliation with Open Britain and have followed the correct process - declaring my COI, using the Talk page, and submitting formal edit requests.

That said, I want to express genuine concern about how this process has unfolded. The current article on Open Britain is severely out of date and contains multiple dead links. It no longer reflects the organisation today, yet it still stands in Wikipedia’s mainspace, potentially misleading the public and media. The inaccuracies are no longer just inconvenient, they are now actively harming the organisation.

Open Britain remains notable. While there are many APPGs in Parliament, the group we have launched is currently the largest, and will play a major role when the government brings forward its Elections Bill. It’s important that those seeking reliable, up-to-date information on this organisation can find it on Wikipedia.

The revised draft I’ve submitted is better sourced, balanced in tone, and free of promotional content. If editors believe further improvements are needed, I absolutely welcome constructive input. But I respectfully ask that this version be seriously considered. If there’s no consensus to update the article, then I believe there is a strong case for reconsidering whether the current article should remain live in its present form, given how outdated and poorly sourced it is.

My goal is simply to ensure the article reflects accurate, well-sourced information in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I genuinely appreciate any editor willing to engage in good faith. I respectfully ask that the article either be updated accordingly or considered for removal altogether.

Thank you for your help. Please find the revised draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoseOpenBritain/Open_Britain_Draft

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Said changes should be made on this talk page, not on a draft on your profile. Please review WP:COI to become familar with the edit request process. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for editorial engagement: Harmful inaccuracies in article need urgent attention

Urgent: The current Open Britain page is severely outdated, poorly sourced, and actively misleading readers - I am requesting immediate editorial engagement to resolve this.

It has now been two weeks since my request without any engagement from editors. The current Open Britain article is almost entirely inaccurate - most information is out of date, almost all sources are dead links, and the content no longer reflects the organisation. This is actively causing harm to the organisation and misleading readers. I have prepared a revised draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoseOpenBritain/Open_Britain_Draft, which is fully referenced, neutral in tone, and far more accurate than the current version. I urgently ask editors to review and consider replacing the page with this draft. If Wikipedia cannot provide proactive engagement soon, I believe there is a strong case for the page’s removal in its present form. Without timely action, I will have no choice but to explore other options to ensure the article reflects accurate, sourced information. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice at the head of your request - "The backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. " Cabayi (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I have tagged this article for proposed deletion because it fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. The content is significantly inaccurate, outdated, and misleading. Many references are dead or do not verify the claims, and there appear to be no reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability in its current form. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have declined the proposal. See the response on your user talk. Cabayi (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. My proposed deletion was based on Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:V and WP:NPOV, due to inaccurate, outdated, and misleading content with dead or unreliable references. Could you please clarify how this rationale was deemed insufficient? I want to ensure that concerns about misleading or unverifiable content are properly addressed. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]