Talk:Atlas Network

Econ Journal Watch

It looks like the group publishes Econ Journal Watch. That should be worked into this article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo obsolete!

115.69.63.229 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Sir Antony Fisher Achievement Awards

There's no sources for it and far as I can see it's a non-notable award.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Twitter account claims

I saw this recent edit. As far as I can tell, the claims about Atlas Network's involvement in Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba are all coming from one person. The article calls him a disinformation "expert" but I couldn't find other sources corroborating his opinion. Everything points to this one person. I would clarify that this is one person's opinion or delete. PJpile (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

PJpile, The Guardian is a reliable independent source (WP:RSP), so I lean toward including it, with WP:INTEXT attribution if you think it is opinionated per WP:BIASED ("reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"). Llll5032 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is no reason to exclude information from a reliable source such as The Guardian. Adding an attribution such as "According to disinformation expert Julián Macías Tovar ... " to the start of the sentence would be fine with me. Julián Macías Tovar seems to be well known in the area of disinformation. He is Spanish and runs a project called Pandemia Digital.

Burrobert (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, are there corroborating sources to add, either in English or Spanish? Is Pandemia Digital considered a RS on Spanish Wikipedia? Llll5032 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about Julián Macías Tovar. I obtained the information from a google search. We don't need a corroborating source since we can accept The Guardian 's assessment of his expertise. Burrobert (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is generally true per WP:RS, although it makes WP:INTEXT attribution more necessary. Llll5032 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Burrobert (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonpartisan?

Doctorstrange617, I removed a statement you added to the article that said Atlas considers itself nonpartisan, because I could not find where the cited sources said it. If a source says it clearly, then you could restore the claim with a footquote (which allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference). In this situation, citing a statement by Atlas itself could be due. Llll5032 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Censorship?

Atlas denies climate catastrophe ...I added information on Atlas' role in negating climate crisis introducing the heading "criticism" on 14th of September. Heading and chapter is removed. WikiYeti (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I merged the information into existing sections of the article. Much of it is WP:DUE. However, WP:CSECTION and WP:STRUCTURE discourage separate sections devoted to criticism, and per WP:SYNTH we should limit sources to the ones that describe Atlas directly. Llll5032 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

I removed some recent additions to the top and other sections, because the article should follow independent sources that are considered the most reliable at RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback, Llll5032. I'm certainly open to discussing the new sources and their notability. However, the sources used were not affiliated with Atlas Network in any way (as far as I can see), so they are independent.

Also, the New Republic reference has been given undue weight throughout the page. It has been used 15 different times on the page, and it is a left-wing source with a clear partisan agenda. According to their website, the New Republic was founded to "bring liberalism into the modern era," criticizing "Republicans hell-bent on subverting democratic governance..."

See here: https://newrepublic.com/pages/about

This isn't the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, for example, and yet it has seemingly been used to cast this organization in a very negative light, especially early on in the page. The opening section and the "History" section, for example, are not written in NPOV style, so we should make them more neutral by lessening this overreliance on a blatantly biased source. What do you think? Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we're currently over reliant on The New Republic source. We can fix this either by adding more from other sources or by removing some of the TNR stuff. Marquardtika (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The New Republic is WP:GREL, so it has more weight than many other sources in the article, but I agree that some details could be removed if they are not also mentioned by other WP:GREL sources. Llll5032 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Of the new sources that I removed or moved, one was from a publication deemed a poor source at RSN, another apparently lacks its own Wikipedia entry, and a third was a commentary by a senior fellow of the Atlas Network. I removed the first two from the article, and the non-independent commentary is now moved out of the top and into the Activities section. Llll5032 (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we stick to the emphases of the best available sources, and per WP:PLAGFORM, copied wording requires quotation marks and very close paraphrases are generally not allowed. Llll5032 (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Doctorstrange617, some more description of the group's ideology or funding may be DUE for the top section, but please rely on high-quality academic or WP:GREL sources, not WP:ABOUTSELF sources (see WP:ABOUTSELF #1) or sources that RSN has decided are marginal. Llll5032 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617, if you want to try to gain consensus to include the Wade interview in the second paragraph, you could cite policy-based reasoning here. Llll5032 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Refutation"

Philadelphia Magazine described Atlas Network as "supporting free-market approaches to eliminating poverty and noted for its refutation of climate change and defense of the tobacco industry."

Of course they did not "refute climate change". It's a quote, and if we use the quote, it has to stay like that; nevertheless, we should try to find a way to replace the market-fundamentalist propaganda lie by a neutral wording. I cannot think of one at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Chaufen and 1980s-2000 growth

I restored this sentence, cited to Plehwe, because it describes a significant period in the group's history. User:Doctorstrange617, do you still believe that there is a compelling reason to remove it? Llll5032 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm only pushing for removal because it's unclear how much of this group's growth can be attributed to Alejandro Chafuen (the name seems to be misspelled too). Brad Lips became CEO in 2009 (see here), so a lot of the growth must have happened under Lips, not Chafuen. That's what I mean by "speculation."

We could edit the sentence, but it would be easier to just remove it altogether. Does that make sense? Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Doctorstrange617. I edited the sentence to make corrections based on what you wrote, aligning with the descriptions in the cited source after page 259. Llll5032 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks again. That source, Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, appears to be well reviewed and it has a chapter about the Atlas Network, so it could be a good independent source of more information. Llll5032 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll look into it... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand

User:Doctorstrange617, I reverted edits that removed information that was recently added by User:Andykatib about Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps a consensus can be achieved that gives it the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Doctorstrange617, are you disputing that the sources are reliable? Llll5032 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Llll5032: for restoring the content that I added yesterday. Those three sources that I added are reliable sources. Newsroom is a reputable current affairs New Zealand website with a slightly centre-left slant while Cosmopolitan Civil Society is a peer reviewed academic journal that is published by University of Technology Sydney. The sources may be critical of Atlas Network but they have gone through an editorial process. Those paragraphs could probably do with some editing to ensure weight and balance but I don't think that it warrants removing them. The content could also be reused for the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union, Centre for Independent Studies, Institute of Public Affairs and 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum if the Atlas Network article is deemed an unsuitable place. Happy to discuss the matter with @Doctorstrange617:. Andykatib (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Andykatib. Doctorstrange617, should the sources be evaluated at WP:RSN? If Cosmopolitan Civil Societies and Newsroom are RS, then some inclusion would be WP:DUE. The paragraph is longer than most other examples of partnerships in the article, so perhaps more information could be condensed. Llll5032 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Llll5032:, thanks for the suggestion. Evaluating them at WP:RSN will be a good idea. Agree that the information could be condensed. Feel free to give it a try. Andykatib (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Andykatib and @Llll5032, I would argue that the content should either be condensed substantially or used for the other think tank pages (e.g. the pages for New Zealand Taxpayers' Union and so forth). The material seems more appropriate for them than Atlas Network. This group has more than 500 partners, so we need to pick and choose when partners are featured in new ways. The word count would be endless otherwise.

Also, in terms of sourcing, they are clearly biased from a left-of-center standpoint, which is an issue throughout the page. The likes of the New Republic, The Guardian, etc. are very prominently featured and unduly so. If the National Review sourcing is going to be questioned, as it has been, then that's not a balanced, good-faith approach. Atlas Network's critics are given too much oxygen, if counter-perspectives are painted as "right-wing" or something like that.

Case in point from National Review: "Fossil-fuel and tobacco interests have provided less than 1 percent of [Atlas Network] funding over the past 20 years," which is relatively insignificant, and yet so much of this page makes it seem like Atlas Network is some shill for these industries. Why can't we tone that down to paint a more accurate picture, based on actual funding proportionality?

That's one of my biggest problems with the page. Also, to the extent that fossil fuel and tobacco are even relevant, there is this underlying assumption that they are evil industries, so bringing them up somehow drags this nonprofit organization's name through the mud. Plus, this page already says that Atlas Network partners may work on "tobacco harm reduction," so again: Where is the balance? Where is the praise then, if the criticism is given so much oxygen/

Another example: If it can be believed, this new material suggests that only "one or two percent of [the] budget" of New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is connected to Atlas Network, and yet we are now giving this material an entire paragraph? Atlas Network seems to be very, very loosely connected, so that's why it makes the most sense to move the paragraph to the relevant think tank pages.

I would love to work together to make this entire page more balanced, but we first need to come to an agreement, in good faith, that encyclopedic content shouldn't really pick a side, like so much of the material does. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Doctorstrange617:, thanks for getting back in touch and for explaining your concerns about bias and objectivity in the Atlas Network article. I agree with your concerns that most of the sources used in the article have a critical or left-leaning slant. I agree that the National Review article does help inject some balance by showing the miniscule level of funding provided by fossil fuel and tobacco companies. The Australian and New Zealand content could definitely be trimmed to a paragraph with content moved to other relevant articles such as the Centre for Independent Studies (which is a stub), the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum and the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union. The Cosmopolitan article doesn't actually talk a great deal about the Australian think tanks' relationship with the Atlas Network. It briefly mentions that relationship but focuses mainly on their role in the Indigenous Voice referendum. The first Newsroom article does have a section about the Taxpayers' Union's relationship with the Atlas Network but does acknowledge the two organisations operate independently. The second Newsroom article discusses the findings of the Cosmopolitan article regarding the Indigenous Voice referendum. None of the three articles explicitly says that the Atlas Network controls or directs these Australian and NZ groups. They talk about their connections and participation in the network whether grants or conferences. Happy to discuss the matter in good faith further with you and @Llll5032:. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the Australia and New Zealand examples could be condensed into the paragraphs at the end of the History section about oil and gas and political movements? Llll5032 (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Llll5032: will be willing to do that. Andykatib (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Doctorstrange617, if you want to gain more consensus for removing the description that three cited WP:GREL sources use, which has been in the article since 2022, then are you willing to cite and quote either a Wikipedia policy directly supporting this argument, or cite other WP:GREL sources that differ? Alternatively, you could ask WP:NPOVN about the neutrality question. Llll5032 (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Partisan WP:MREL sources (which is how National Review is rated at WP:RSN and WP:RSP, with "Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed") do not have as much WP:WEIGHT as WP:GREL sources, even if some of those GREL sources are rated as biased or opinionated. Partisan MREL sources may be used but should be attributed, especially when WP:RSP advises it, and should rarely be represented in Wikivoice. Perhaps a short and neutral addition to the top section could summarize the whole Finances section, which has multiple RS, instead of choosing a single source within it. The article should be proportionate to what WP:BESTSOURCES say. I agree that unnecessary repetition should be avoided. Some content could be grouped and summarized to reduce such repetition. Llll5032 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Tobacco and fossil fuel alliances sentence at end of second paragraph

A number of editors have contributed during the last year to this sentence at the end of the second paragraph about Atlas alliances with tobacco, oil and gas interests. Those alliances have been the focus of a variety of academic sources and other sources that are listed as generally reliable at RSN and RSP. I am beginning a discussion because its inclusion was questioned by an editor yesterday. In my opinion, such a sentence needs to be included per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:PROPORTION because of the variety of reliable sources which have focused on the issues at length. For neutrality, sources in that sentence should be limited to generally reliable sources (per WP:RSN and WP:RSP) and high quality academic journals, omitting primary references to marginal sources from any "side" of a debate. Llll5032 (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617, I see you have re-removed the content, but we are missing policy-related discussion in either edit summaries or the talk page of why the sentence should be removed if it is proportionate to what WP:BESTSOURCES say, per WP:CAREFUL, arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. I shared this question at FTN, where Atlas Network has been mentioned in passing before. Llll5032 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We have enough good sources about the Network's denialist anti-science activities. They should not be deleted with the flimsy excuse that they are WP:BIASED. Biased sources can be used if they are reliable, and they are essentially biased in favor of science, which is a good thing. See also WP:GOODBIAS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have seen no RSN discussions saying that The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Agence France-Presse, or the Canadian Journal of Communication are considered biased here. Those three sources are the majority of the five cited sources in the sentence, and the other two sources are also summarized as generally reliable at WP:RSP. Llll5032 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for being lazy here, but can we have some quotes included with the sources you list so that (reason I use quotes) editors can easily see specifically which statements in the reference MOST support the statements in the article, and so readers can have some confidence that the references are being reasonably summarized/paraphrased. This is especially helpful when random IP's revert controversial statements, it allows editors totally new to an article to quickly check whether the statement is a reasonable paraphrase.

For the record, I'm the one who wanted SPECIFIC information describing their ties, so it doesn't just sound like they are golf buddies, and I think your phrasing "associated with" and "accepted some donations." is good. Though (if true) "lobbied for" would be more informative than "associated with". Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Avatar317, I agree with you that more specifics will be helpful. I added some refquotes per your request. Thanks for the idea. For editors who wish to verify or find more information, four of the five sources are unlocked, and the last source is available via the Wikipedia Library. Llll5032 (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! I think those quotes are VERY helpful! I'll try to read some of those sources as I get a chance. I realize that each quote is not necessarily the whole picture from the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Avatar317. If the sentence is restored, then we could add refquotes to the new version. Llll5032 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be no discussion here by editors favoring removal. Should the sentence be restored now, and future edits can be made to it via normal editing in the article? Llll5032 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the discussion here: As per MOS:INTRO, the lead section does not need to include info about the subject's industry affiliations or donations. The info IS elaborated in the body on multiple occasions. Fenharrow (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Does not NEED to, but not prohibited from. This is a pretty big deal. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)