Talk:Atlas Network

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)

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)

Is the most specific INTRO policy guidance MOS:LEADREL? It says, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." Per LEADREL, we could decide perhaps that the sentence is included if WP:BESTSOURCES emphasize those subjects proportionately to the sentence's share of the lead section, or about 15%. Llll5032 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The statement about this alleged association to tobacco and fossil fuel interests is exaggerated and draws undue emphasis to the nature of any historical giving. The Democratic Party in the United States has received fossil fuel donations (and tobacco), but this does not merit inclusion in the lead of that article either because it would mischaracterize and disproportionately argue that this is somehow the primary base of their donors. Strong consensus would need to emerge before being featured in the lead and therefore given appropriate WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why you removed the sentence, Iljhgn. The policy you cited, WP:DUEWEIGHT, says that we follow the emphasis of reliable sources about a subject. A majority of editors appears to currently favor inclusion, but I agree that WP:DUEWEIGHT is most important and the article should reflect the most reliable sources.

Some RS, such as Neubauer & Graham, say oil-connected donors are a major source of funding for Atlas. See their refquote below, which calls it an "oil-industry-funded transnational network". Llll5032 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not read enough of the sources to have an opinion on whether this info should be in the lead. (My edits were to try to clarify poor/uninformative wording.) Iljhgtn's explanation is valid; it depends on what the sources say, which I haven't had the time to investigate yet. So I don't favor inclusion or exclusion at this point. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:OPEN, the opening paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, without being "too specific." I think that the current lead of this page effectively summarizes the organization. Including the group's funding-related information, particularly involving the tobacco and fossil fuel industries in some sort of negative tone, goes against presenting the subject neutrally. And that does not make for a quality lead. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "neutral" means "in agreement with the sources, without introducing editor's opinions". Others have already argued in that direction. Now you are introducing your opinion on what should be there and what not, dropping the connection to sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, the sentence has been at the end of the second paragraph, not the opening paragraph, in various versions since June 2023 before it was recently removed by Iljhgn and Doctorstrange617. Llll5032 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the opening section. Thanks for clarifying!

Back to our discussion now: The one NIH article that you cited claims, "This article finds that the multiple connections between Atlas, its partner think tanks, and the tobacco industry represent more than a handful of isolated cases." That tobacco industry association observed in "more than a handful of isolated cases" does not appear to be significant enough at all for inclusion in the opening section, per WP:WEIGHT.

The Guardian article even states that "the bulk of Atlas’s work is unrelated to tobacco policy." Therefore, adding the group's association with such industries to the lead paragraphs is severely undue. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So, after perusing (not thoroughly reading) all the sources listed here in this discussion, I don't think the statement belongs in the lead because it over-emphasizes their connections to oil and tobacco when they are often described as having a much broader agenda.

The NewRepublic article covers more than just oil, Atlas also set up shop in Brazil in the 1980s, working with various agribusiness groups to push back against the environmental regulations and Indigenous rights proposals being made by the Workers Party. Decades later, Atlas helped to spur the “Free Brazil” movement in 2014, which helped to propel Jair Bolsonaro to the presidency....Atlas Network executives and member think tanks have always painted environmentalists and the regulations they seek to place on polluting industries as a cancerous growth on society.

The Julia Smith et al 2016 paper says "...acted as a strategic ally to the tobacco industry throughout the 1990s." Both the Guardian article and the LeMonde article use the Julia Smith et al 2016 paper as their source for the 37% number, which comes from the 1990's, now 20 years ago.

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and there is a lot more to them than just opposing regulations on tobacco and oil.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Avatar317, thanks for your careful consideration of the RS. What would you think about adding some of those other stances in an independently sourced statement summarizing the broader agenda? Though the 2021 Le Monde article cites current tobacco connections involving the Philip Morris gala sponsorship and a number of Atlas partners, the current fossil fuel connections appear stronger than tobacco connections according to recent RS. Perhaps fossil fuels should have been named before tobacco in the removed sentence, and perhaps it should have listed more causes in addition to "free-market causes favorable to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries". Llll5032 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A statement like: "Atlas supports/lobbies for free-market policies and opposes government regulations of industry, including environmental regulations, for example having lobbied against X regulations on oil companies/drilling/?? and increased tobacco/vaping regulations." might be better, so it includes what they have done without making it sound like that's all they do. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Avatar317, I agree that a sentence with such a structure would be an improvement. Perhaps an added phrase could note that the affiliate groups do the public campaigning, using RS phrasing. Would you agree to an editor soon adding to the article a sentence similar to your proposal that cites WP:BESTSOURCES carefully for all claims, which could then be edited and discussed further? If you do, then it would appear to have majority support in this discussion, and perhaps could gain even more consensus through edits. Llll5032 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Atlas's tiny connection to the tobacco industry and stance on environmental laws in the lede seem to deliberately target and overly paint the subject in a bad light. The material is of relatively trivial significance and does not seem appropriate for the lede. 174.47.209.2 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this other editor: The industry connection is too tiny and trivial to warrant inclusion in the lede, per available sourcing. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A new journal article was published in Canada last month about the connections to fossil fuels industries and campaigns against climate policies. These appear to be a continuing focus of RS in North America, Europe and Oceania, as seen in the sources below and various other sources in the article. Llll5032 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many of the fossil fuel and tobacco industry affiliations attributed to Atlas Network don't necessarily convey the group's role in their involvement accurately. According to a Forbes article, Atlas Network provides "training and support" to individuals and organizations, and not all of these industry affiliations are directly with the group itself. Based on what I can tell, it is important to distinguish the associations with the individual groups that partner with Atlas Network, and associations with the group itself. They seem to be two different things. A DeSmog article claims that "many of the member think tanks of the Atlas Network have supported...and have campaigned against legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions." Those individual groups, if notable and if they have their own Wikipedia articles, should maybe have their pages updated accordingly, but it would be misleading to update Atlas Network's page like that. There is a key distinction to be made... Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The Network's connections to those industries are n the article because reliable sources talk about them, and we will not delete them from the article just because you do not like that and try to reason them away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:AVOIDYOU, we should remember to consider that, As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. This would be a good time for us to remember this aspect of WP policy and address policy points and not cast aspersions such as, "...just because you do not like that..." about other editor's arguments.

@Doctorstrange617, I notice that you often sign [~ ~ ~ ~] your comments twice. You do not need to sign them twice, but only once is more than sufficient. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

While focusing on Atlas Network, the RS attribute some actions to Atlas and some actions to its members, and so does the article. We follow RS, so if any sentences do not make a distinction that the cited RS do, then wording such as "affiliates" or "partners" should be added to keep the relationships clear. Llll5032 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The association with the tobacco industry, including donations, occurred 20 years ago in 2005. It is too trivial and from a long time ago to be mentioned in the lead. Adding it to the lead will unduly overemphasize its significance. Fenharrow (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Le Monde and Guardian articles cited below identify continuing relationships between Atlas and tobacco causes, such as more recent donations to Atlas by BAT, sponsorship by Philip Morris of Atlas' annual gala dinner, and pro-vaping campaigns by member groups. RS appear to say the connections to the fossil fuel industries are stronger than the tobacco connections, so if the sentence is re-included, it should emphasize fossil fuel connections more. Llll5032 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Not the best course of action here to highlight Atlas donations in the lead section as it gives undue emphasis on that affiliation making it sound like "associations"/ "donations" with tobacco industries are all that Atlas does. Besides the more recent associations focus on the Atlas's member think tanks not Atlas per se. And, those two sources do not support the requirement of emphasis on fossil fuel connections. Fenharrow (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fenharrow, three of the other sources below are about pro-fossil fuels actions and funding; several other academic and journalism sources cited in the article also focus on those. Llll5032 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)