This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism 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.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
A significant editor appears to have a COI in regard to the topic - flagging just so that we can ensure that it remains NPOV. Bilby (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: can you please expand on where you see problems? I have looked over it, and I can't see where there is evidence of a COI or POV editing. If you can point to something specific, then we can start a more productive discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email stating that one of the main editors has a COI in regard to the topic. I looked into it, and it does appear to be the case. Because of the COI, this needs to be independently checked for neutrality, so I tagged it as such. - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the above - to be respectful to the editor concerned, who has expressed a wish not to connect their RL identity with their WP account, I am trying to avoid saying who they are. But from your appearance here I gather you know who I'm referring to. Based on that, do you really feel that they do not have a COI? I see an obvious one, so I find it strange that you are saying otherwise. Anyone who has a role which involves promoting an organisation must have a COI when it comes to writing articles about that organisation on WP. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: obviously you must not out the person in question. As much as I dislike defending myself against ad hominem attacks, let me set the record straight. I know nothing about that email; I did not even know there was one until I read your comments above. I do not know who you are referring to, and I do not know of anybody who has any conflicting role in the organization in question, nor anybody in a role which involves promoting it. I have never had anything to do with the organization in any form.
So if nobody else can see this email then we can't really discuss it; instead we need to focus on the article itself. What specific problems do you see in the article?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can, because you know who I am talking about. And technically I could pass this on COIN, but I'd really rather not make a fuss. The thing about COI editing is that it can have a number of effects that aren't immediately apparent. The most obvious is an overly positive (or negative) account. I notice that this article has nothing negative to say about the organisation, but is that because they are entirely positive, or because it has been left out? That is something that takes a fair bit of effort to confirm. But other issues can include poor sourcing (the editor knows it is true, so they don't notice that the source is missing or otherwise doesn't cover the claim), expanding claims so that they go beyond the source, or simply emphasising the aspects of the organisation beyond what would be warranted by the coverage.
At any rate, I have a lot of respect for you as an editor. If someone is specifically engaged to promote an organisation, and they then become a major editor of that organisation's article on WP, would you agree that they have a COI? And would it then warrant a further examination to look at whether or not the article hasn't been affected by that COI? - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: I also respect you as an editor, but I do not appreciate being called a liar. I repeat: I do not know who you are referring to. Moving on, you outlined a list of issues that may arise when there is a COI. But you have not indicated which of these you think affect this article. I am not sure what you are proposing here: are you going to request that some independent editor is assigned to review the article, looking for problems like you mention? If so, go for it - I'm not sure what the process is or how you find a suitable editor and get their buy-in, but if they have suitable expertise then it can only help. Or are you proposing something different?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, which I'm very sorry I didn't mention below, I apologise that I did not respond correctly to your statement that you did not know the person involved. I'm sorry for screwing up there, and for making a false accusation by assuming that you did know them. The thing is, I'd really not escalate this, as I respect everyone involved, and I was hoping that this would be a simple problem of just tagging an article and waiting for someone independent to look at it. Maybe it would be best to at least name the editor, as I'm probably making more problems by being overly cautious? Would that help, given that I will not mention their real name, just their WP username? Or do you think that would be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: it really doesn't matter to me (as if my opinion matters!) And I'm not sure it would make a difference either way to whoever ends up doing the review. My expectation is that they should be looking at the content of the article. Or am I wrong; should they be reviewing the edits made by a particular editor? I ask because apart from any COI, this is the sort of subject that could attract editors who have a viewpoint, which could result in similar problems to the ones you describe from the COI - that is why I hope the reviewer would look at it all. Gronk Oz (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think there is poor sourcing, as I believe claims are either not supported by the source or have no source. And I'm concerned that there is no negative material on the organisation, when I would expect that an organisation that is specifically opposed to religion would either a) have some negative coverage, or b) not be notable enough to have garnered such coverage. As examples of sourcing issues, in paragraph two, much of the content is unsourced. It has references, but they don't fully support the content. Then in paragraph 5, the reference doesn't include the quote that is being ascribed to MacBain. This is what I tend to find in COI editing.
But please, just so that we have a baseline, would you agree that in the scenario I have described, in which an editor is specifically involved with the promotion of an organisation, that they have a COI when it comes to editing WP in regard to that organisation? That would, at least, tell me that we agree as to what might constitute a COI. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the purpose of the tag isn't a badge of dishonour. As it says, I believe (very strongly) that the article was edited by someone with a COI, so it asks for a neutral editor who is not connected to the subject or the editor concerned to go over the material to confirm that it has not been affected by the COI. I'm finding problems, and normally I'd like to address them, but my intention was to avoid any sort of drama by highlighting the issues and then stepping back, although sadly I haven't been given that opportunity. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: Thanks for giving those examples. And I appreciate your efforts to avoid escalating the matter. I agree that if somebody holds a position where they are responsible to promote the organization, that would seem to be a prima facie COI. After our last exchange, I thought I should do some due diligence so I went to the organization's web site, and I checked through the entire list of all their employees and board members. There is nobody there I recognized. Lots of articles have COI tags on them and some have been there for a long time; do you think that just adding this tag will attract the attention of a suitable reviewer? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that it will. I should note that the organisation also has a team of volunteer ambassadors responsible for promoting the organisation, who are not themselves paid employees. My concern is with that group. While COI is most clear with paid employees, it can extend to anyone who is engaged in promotion, especially with non-profits and groups that rely on unpaid volunteers. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: Yes, I agree that it isn't just paid relationships that create an interest, and to be doubly sure I checked the guideline which says it applies to "... financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." I don't know anywhere I can check the volunteers you mention, so is the next step just to wait and see if somebody independent picks up on the COI tag and does a review? Gronk Oz (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: It has been over a month, and no other editors seem to have picked up on the tag. What can we do to attract suitable, independent help?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I've ever known is to wait. The problem is with the original editor who probably should have realised that this was a bad idea. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
