Talk:Tony Blair Faith Foundation

link 5

link 5 is a complete attack piece, this article look like it's actual objective is to critisise the foundation, the crtiism section is developing early, also the critism of a redlink written by another redlink is a bit weighty. Link 5 is worthless negative rubbish and should not be cited. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Off2riorob hello yet again. And yet again I see we disagree. Never mind. More concretely I think there might be some confusion with your recent additions here. I think think "On a cold winter's day in New Haven, Connecticut, Tony Blair launched his new inter-faith foundation that has links with Yale University" is not correct. I think he was launching his already established Foundation's links with the new programs linked with Yale. Not launching the Foundation - as I think your entry reads. Both "On a cold winter's day" and "something of a coup" seem a bit plagiarismish and journalistic. I am also a bit worried about "the eradication of malaria" being "a key priority". Do you know about the Foundation? I think it is more of a talking thing. This was, I think, just a throw away line (bandwagon jumping) for the media. There doesn't seem much about malaria on the website of the Foundation. Perhaps you might want to modify any of these things if you think you made an error. I think our entry was quite nice - with a clear statement of what the Foundation is about and the some criticism. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

You can alter the little details it you would like to, or I'll do it later, I got it cold winters day from the bbc link, and the maleria, you should take that complete slag off piece out from the critiisism section. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I've taken it out, please don't put it back as it is very opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An angry editor

I do not think you have the right to say that I can alter little details if you like and not to put things back because you don't like them because of your bias. Also following me around articles and adding plagiarism and errors to them and deleting criticisms in line with you own point of view is not in my view helpful. (Have you restored your sabotage of the Mandelson entry yet to restore the information you deleted? Please try to be more considerate of other editors). (Msrasnw (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I rewrote those comments, and saying it was a cold winters night if the same as using a fact, it was a cold winters night, it was a fact so it is nothing to do with plagerism. Also I commented that it is excessive to use this negative opinionated article as a citation is giving undue weight to those additions. Your comments about other pages and refering to my edits as sabotage is not applying much faith and if you have issues please bring them up at dispute resolutionn and I would request you provide a link to this so called sabotage. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Launch

Added little section on the launch - with date and speech content from BBC (Msrasnw (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Six leading religions?

'All six leading religions'? Any indication which six leading religions these are meant to be? Even in terms of population, it's not exactly clear cut. Presumably Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism feature. Then it gets confusing: based on the distribution of their efforts demonstrated on the organisation's website, Blair had Sikhism and Judaism in mind, but it's difficult to justify specifying these six and not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though it is now clear from the article which six religions TB is referring to, their selection remains undiscussed. Since this seems to me to be an important question, I've added a "clarification needed" tag. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests from the organization

Here is an note from someone who works at the TBFF:

In particular, we would like to address the following:

1. Our Foundation has additional programmes that we would like to see on the Wikipedia page – it currently looks like the only programme it runs is :the Faith and Globalisation Initiative, which also has its own page, but which is also out of date in terms of the number of universities in the network and :the type of work the programme does. We also run a global schools programme, are mobilising a global grassroots movement of volunteers, and run an :annual global film competition including other things.

2. We would like to update and correct the information about our staff and directors. There are two organizations – the Tony Blair Faith Foundation :and the Tony Blair Faith Foundation US - a separate 501 3 (c) in the US – which is not made clear. Instead, the list of directors of both organizations is :listed as if they were part of one, which is misleading.

3. We would like to edit what the page says about our basic premise as we disagree with how it is currently stated - as we work on the Millennium :Development Goals, primarily malaria prevention, and not poverty eradication as it currently states.

Keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, we are happy to make such edits but seek your opinion. As we are not Wikipedia experts, we are looking for any :helpful pointers that you or a colleague may be able to offer to ensure we stay true to Wikipedia and that the TBFF facts remain up to date on the page.

We would appreciate any assistance helping to ensure that the TBFF Wikipedia page remains as accurate as possible, might there be someone other than :Jimmy from whom we could seek advice?

I'd like to also note that the account User:TBFF was apparently blocked in January and some edits undone. Those edits should be reviewed to see if there is anything good in there to be salvaged, and I will ask them to use an account that doesn't have a 'group editor' connotation, since the editor seems perfectly happy to do the right thing, i.e. post only to the talk page with that account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The suggestions do seem reasonably and probably easily achievable, but it would be useful if the TBFF were able to provide suitable sourcing for the improvements they want to see (WP:RS). --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll let them know and I suppose much of it (the boards of the two organizations for example) will be easy to find on their website.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I haven't actually tried, but it is quite a big website. Probably, the more they are able to spoon-feed us, the quicker they will get their changes. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments with NPOV and COI in mind

Responding to the above list supplied by Jimbo;

1) Good for you - however the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant. If they are of editorial importance to make the article high quality they will be included. If not - not. What "you" want to see is irrelevant I'm afraid.

2) Please post a reliable source (see WP:RS) - ideally a third party source - and this can be fixed - if it is editorially valuable to have the information at all, which is subject to debate of course.

3) As Jimbo says, please use this talk page to avoid a conflict of interest; any links to reliable sources (again, third party if possible) may help. Note also that your disagrement is secondary to the verifiable nature of what you do - as opposed to what you claim to do. Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would 2) need a third party source? A self-published source would be perfectly fine. --Conti|✉ 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote - I said ideally. Obviously self published is ok (in this respect), but third party is clearly better if available. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it would have been nice to clearly mention that in the first place, especially when dealing with newbies. :) --Conti|✉ 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, Pedro, is that your tone is hostile and annoying. "the fact that you may have additional programmes that you'd like to see on this article is irrelevant" - that's actually an absolutely irrelevant comment on your part. Please go read WP:AGF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The fact that anyone wants to see or not see something in an article is the start for any good faith discussion on content. I thank the correspondent for bringing these ideas for improvement to editors' attention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on TBFF's suggested change no. 3

With regards to this suggested change by the TBFF: "3. We would like to edit what the page says about our basic premise as we disagree with how it is currently stated - as we work on the Millennium :Development Goals, primarily malaria prevention, and not poverty eradication as it currently states." My recollection is the initial mission statement (which has now gone from their site) suggested poverty eradication was one of their issues and my suspicion is that there has now been a shift in mission to jump on the anti-malaria bandwagon and to claim some of the success for this talking shop. I am perhaps over cynical about this organisation. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

You may be right, but we can't go off what we recall. If they are involved in anti-Malaria work, then we can mention that in the article. We can even say that it is a primary goal, if that is currently the case, although we should use wording that does not potentially rewrite the organisation's history.

If you want to subject the topic to utmost scrutiny and suspicion because it is associated with Tony Blair (not a criticism - what right-thinking person could blame you), then it's up to you to find the secondary sources that give the lie. --FormerIP (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, FormerIP, that such motives are ever appropriate for Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia with a desire to prove a lie or to be cynical about something is not appropriate. Msrasnw's cynical approach is just not encyclopedic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think cynicism is critical! And Msrasnw's comment is reasonable - even as expressed. He recalls a different initial mission - and we should look for any independent sources that could document this switch in focus. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That there might be some interest in how their mission statement has evolved over time goes without question. What I'm calling out here is this bit: "my suspicion is that there has now been a shift in mission to jump on the anti-malaria bandwagon and to claim some of the success for this talking shop." This is not an idle comment about a neutral desire to document history, it clearly states a suspicion of a bad motive on the part of the org, including taking credit for other people's work, etc. That's just the wrong attitude for a Wikipedian to take.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a part of the way WP works. I often see something in an article that doesn't seem to me to quite sit right, or where I'm sure I read something different in the dim and distant past. Of course, it's wrong to edit an article on that basis, but it's appropriate to be spurred to check sources, if you are so spurred. We can't just turn off the perfectly natural psychological mechanisms of cynicism and suspicion, and we ought not to be taking on the moral hazard of seeking to ensure the contentment of PR people just because they approach us politely. FormerIP (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps at least a little useful to have some cynical, or realistic, editors on our encyclopedia given the prevalence of spin and marketing in general and by such organisations in particular. There also seem to me possible conflicts of interest with this organisation and its advisers contributing here when such relationships are not always so open. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)) And I think we should certainly include their disucssions of anit-malaria work with some indication of what work they are actually doing. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

If you are concerned about people not being open about conflicts of interest, as I am, then you should take a warm and loving attitude, rather than hostility, when someone does precisely the right thing by asking for help and taking our advice. Verbally beating up someone who works for a charity and is asking for very mild corrections of errors because you have some hatred for the boss is not really helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can claim that I hate the boss - based on the fact that I am cycnical about the motivations for this organisation. It seems a bit of a jump. (I don't hate him but am disappointed as to how things have turned out and many of the things he has done). All I was claiming here is that I seem to recall this organisation used to have in its mission statement a claim, in addition to all the faith stuff, they were going to be addressing "poverty". Poverty is far more contentious than fighting malaria and much less has been achieved. And lots of faith people don't like anti-poverty talk escpecially if they are rich. The original mission statement to my recollection did not include malaria. My understanding is the organisation does not fund actual steps to end malaria (nets and the like) but funds faith groups to spread the message about malaria. I am not clear about how or where the poverty message went and was offering my opinion which I perhaps should not have done. I am sorry. About conflicts of interest - my worry was more in the line that this organisation was not asking us as an encyclopedia directly about things rather they were asking you as their internet advisor and then you were discussing it as an editor. My view was that in a sense acting in both capacities which might be in conflict with each other. That was all and sorry for any offence or if I have got this the wrong way round. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)) PS: I think it is worth mentioning that user:TBFF did remove our mentioning of their anti-poverty agenda which does suggest to me some shift of emphasis by them.

Thanks for the apology, I think we are getting on track now. I'm not sure what you mean about "acting in both capacities". I am acting solely as a Wikipedia editor here. They approached me as such, lots of people do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again I had thought you had worked for them as a volunteer advising them on their internet strategy. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

I am a member of their Board of Advisors, but I have never had any particular role "working for them as a volunteer". Nevertheless, the reason I'm only interacting on the talk page is that I am a very strong believer in avoiding WP:COI editing, and want to set a good example of best practices.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My worry was along these lines. I think perhaps your first contribution on this page might have made it clearer you were one of their advisors and I recall you had previously argued (Ruth Turner (political advisor)'s talk page) your were "informally advising (as a volunteer only) the Tony Blair Faith Foundation on their Internet strategy". I like to think I am a warm and loving person in general but I was responding, perhaps firmly, to an established editor here - you - who seemed to have a COI. I would not have replied this way to outsiders who were trying to do the right thing. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

Let me be clear: the changes requested were of a merely factual nature, neither positive nor negative for the TBFF, and hence under our existing policy (which I think should be tightened) would have been ok even for the TBFF to have made themselves. I believe that it would have been appropriate for me to make these changes. Only in the interest of the highest degree of care in these matters, I have chosen not to edit the page myself anyway. Your cynicism and hostile attitude has been entirely unnecessary and unhelpful--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well, an interesting way to cast the discussion... Anyway, on the content issue I spent an hour digging this morning and turned up little of use - most of the reportage about the charities aims are largely of a press-release/promotional type. Certainly their interest in Malaria treatment increased in the wake of other success in that area (i.e. Gates). Critical commentary on that change is lacking, though. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the earliest version of the FaithsAct website (which is the program we are discussing) that I can find in archive.org is here and clearly says "The Faiths Act Fellowship is an opportunity for young leaders of faith to become ambassadors for inter-religious cooperation achieving the Millennium Development Goals and ending deaths due to malaria." So we actually have no evidence so far of any change to the mission of that program at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[Update]' This page appears to be the first explanation of the Faiths Act program on the TBFF website. It is 100% clearly about malaria. This is from May 31, 2008. The earliest news mention I can find in Google News archive of the Faiths Act program is this one on September 25, 2008. "Fellows will return to their home countries for 8 months to mobilize young people of faith to raise awareness and resources to promote the Millennium Development Goals. They will particularly focus on fighting deaths from malaria." I think it fairly clear that the claim here that this program had some kind of major shift of emphasis is extremely unlikely to be true. It appears to have been a part of the project from the beginning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the research I managed. At launch in 2008 they listed aims to "tackle global poverty and conflict" as a global focus of the charity. They had that message [ http://web.archive.org/web/20090225121225/http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/about-us/mission-statement.htmltill as late as 2009]. As part of that they have Faiths Act; which, as you say, focuses on Malaria. As they themselves say; Faiths Act, mobilises people of faith to work together on issues of health and global poverty, in order to help achieve the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Our initial focus is the eliminating of deaths from malaria. - so we could maybe work with that. Their message seems consistent - and one of four facets of their work appears to be Malaria. I can't find any critical commentary of their work in this area. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here might be the fact we haven't had a section/page on the Faith Acts initiative. Doesn't even seem to have been mentioned. I have started such a section with a quick cited paraphrasing of their site. Perhaps we should have a section on each initiative. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

There are now sections on each policy initiative. The annual reports clearly state the foundations "main activities are:

• educational
• focused on poverty reduction
• designed to increase understanding of and ease of relations between people of different religions". This is available here: http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/sites/default/files/elfinder/Documents/TBFF%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf. I am not sure why someone from the organisation was saying they were not doing poverty reduction and their main thing was malaria - perhaps they were from Faith Acts rather than the TBFF in general. But anyway I think the article is now more informative than it was. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

All six leading religions

It's a direct quote from them.

1. Does it really need our own researched list of 6 religions? I'm concerned this is synth
2. What on earth is the "what" tag about - it's brain-dead clear what he was talking about. Even if the religions are not specified (and that is not overly important).

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Taken out of context, it's unclear to me what "all six leading religions" are. Presumably, that is a judgement of the TBFF based on contemporary considerations such as international representation and influence (otherwise Taoism, Confucianism and Zoroastrianism, for example, would surely have been included). Nevertheless, I feel the "six leading religions" claim needs some sort of clarification. Especially since animist religions of indigenous peoples appear not to be represented. Sincerely, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are over-thinking it too much. Unless Blair deigns to expand on his definitions it is just a quote from him about the aim of the charity. There is no need to research or otherwise clarify that. FWIW the current text is even worse because there isn't any such list in the cited source, and I can't find anything on the Foundation site identifying them. I'm not sure where Wikid77 got the list from. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand what you intend here by "overthinking". Brain-dead as you may think me, I don't find the statement about "all six leading religions" intrinsically clear. My guess is that TB finds the statement self-explanatory because he is reasoning in terms of representation and influence. Obviously, that's one possible perspective—presumably the one that concerns the TBFF most. However, other politically valid perspectives do exist. I remember the Dalai Lama, when interviewed on Italian television, asking the interviewer to explain what he meant by "major religions" (or words to that effect). The Dalai Lama, who is both a religious and political leader, went on to explain why he preferred not to reason in such terms. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that the page currently seems to take on board the judgement of what constitutes a "major" religion: The Foundation has an International Religious Advisory Council made up of members of the 6 major religions. As you'll have noticed, I've substituted the clarification-needed tag with something less ugly (I hope), but I'm not so sure about what to do about the present sentence (...made up of members of what the Foundation considers to be the six major religions?). —MistyMorn (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the the Foundation's view of "major religion" the subject of substantive critical commentary? Sources? Otherwise that all seems speculative; we don't need to spend time clarifying in detail exactly what they mean by "Major Religions" - it's just religions they consider major, by some scheme or other. (and I missed that later section; sorry! In which case the current formulation seems fine and I withdraw my objection) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've understood your (obviously) hasty parenthesis, but I've made the change I tentatively suggested above. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)