Talk:The Inter Faith Network

This page appears to be highly one-sided and contains inaccurate information
Page includes the following inaccuracies: "From its foundation, the Inter Faith Network was funded in several millions of pounds by the British government." The IFN received Government funding only from 2001 (https://www.interfaith.org.uk/about/ifn-funding) but was founded in 1987 "The Inter Faith Network every year listed on its website under the banner of "Inter Faith Week" various inter-religious events which were in actuality organised, financed and run mainly by other institutions and groups unconnected to the IFN;" Events are listed on a separate website (www.interfaithweek.org), and it is clear any organisation can take part (https://www.interfaithweek.org/about) "The Inter Faith Network was a political-religious group which was founded in 1987 by Director and Deputy Director, Brian Pearce and Harriet Crabtree, the latter then continuing and remaining in post as sole Executive Director throughout the whole four decade history of the organisation." Harriet Crabtree joined the staff in 1990 and became Director in 2007 (https://www.interfaith.org.uk/uploads/20anniversary.pdf, page 29) "Peer-reviewed academic publications and newspaper articles record that over its history the Inter Faith Network was the subject of legal challenges and complaints to government regulatory bodies for alleged religious discrimination, as well as allegations of bullying and harassment by the IFN Executive Director and other IFN officials of whistleblowers of malfeasance within the organisation. On 19 January 2024, Michael Gove, Secretary of State of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced the termination of taxpayer funding to the Inter Faith Network citing the UK government's "serious concerns" with the IFN and the "reputational risk" to the state. Against the background of these controversies, including the expressed "anger" of officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities with the Inter Faith Network and its officers, the termination of government funding, as well as complaints by former IFN Trustees to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, on 7 February 2024 the IFN Board of Trustees announced its decision to move for closure of the organisation." - No citations given  2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Page intro is written in the past tense and implies the charity has closed. This is not the case (https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/3949916/charity-overview). The Charity's Board have announced that they will begin closure of the charity after 22 February 2024 if funding is not received (https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/interfaith-charity-prepares-close-six-month-delay-government-funding/governance/article/1861144). Suggest edit to present tense. 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:1479:4972:ACED:DEB3 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
I am new to Wikipedia editing, please forgive any poor use of markup etc. This page seems to fall short of Wikipedia NPOV standards. Aside from errors of fact (to be detailed below), the range of sources, and in particular omissions, appears to present fringe views as the only extant views of the organisation. General proposed changes Change tense to present. The charity is not closed, but has announced a decision to move toward closure after 22 February if funding is not received. (see: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/interfaith-charity-prepares-close-six-month-delay-government-funding/governance/article/1861144)

Specific proposed changes    Suggest deletion of the following paragraphs, which contain no citations and appear to present an unbalanced viewpoint: "Peer-reviewed academic publications[citation needed] and newspaper articles[citation needed] record that over its history the Inter Faith Network was the subject of legal challenges and complaints to government regulatory bodies for alleged religious discrimination, as well as allegations of bullying and harassment by the IFN Executive Director and other IFN officials of whistleblowers of malfeasance within the organisation. On 19 January 2024, Michael Gove, Secretary of State of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced[citation needed] the termination of taxpayer funding to the Inter Faith Network citing the UK government's "serious concerns" with the IFN and the "reputational risk" to the state.

Against the background of these controversies, including the expressed[citation needed] "anger" of officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities with the Inter Faith Network and its officers, the termination of government funding, as well as complaints by former IFN Trustees to the Charity Commission for England and Wales[citation needed], on 7 February 2024 the IFN Board of Trustees announced[citation needed] its decision to move for closure of the organisation."</li> <li> Section Heading does not reflect content.</li> <li> Removed reference to Co-Chairs always being Church of England clerics; one was a clergyman in the Scottish Episcopal Church.</li> <li> Removes material about other organisations. More appropriate to add to those organisations' pages.</li> <li>Suggest deletion of following: ''"Sam Westrop, Senior Fellow of the Gatestone Institute, writes, "By championing these Islamists as the 'voice' of British Islam, the Inter Faith Network falsely legitimizes these extremist groups, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, to be sincerely representative of British Muslims. A 2007 survey revealed, however, that 94% of British Muslims do not believe that the Muslim Council of Britain represents their views"."'' - Presents a one-sided view, and source given appears dubious. The citation is a link to the Gatestone Institute report, but the reference in this to a 2007 survey points to a dead link.</li> <li>Suggest 'Political Lobbying' section be removed as unbalanced or moved to a new section headed 'criticisms' and presented with counter-arguments. </li> <li>Suggest the 'legal challenge' section be removed or substantially redrafted. No legal challenge has ever been brought against the IFN, successful or otherwise, on this issue or any other, and the references included do not suggest otherwise. A reference to the Bindmans LLP advice has now been added, which is clearly headed 'Guidance'. There was correspondence between Bindmans and Bates Wells in which assertions by Bindmans were refuted by Bates Wells. No proceedings were ever begun.</li> <li>Suggest the following be deleted as presenting a one-sided fringe view of the organisation and potentially attacks on named individuals: "Muhammad Al-Hussaini, Senior Lecturer in Islamic Studies at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life, writes, "Throughout its history, the IFN has been chaired by a largely static Church of England bishop or senior Anglican cleric, and a more frequently rotating non-Christian co-chair". He asserts that "Since its creation by its lifetime salaried Directors, Harriet Crabtree and Brian Pearce, the IFN has embodied the vested interests of a monetised Interfaith Industry and the project of the Church of England hierarchy to reinvent itself as a primus inter pares 'head boy of Eton' for all UK faiths, just as England's bishops chase continued political relevance in the face of the C of E's own terminal decline in congregational numbers"." Also relevant to note that 'lifetime salaried Directors...' is clearly false. Mr Pearce served as Director from 1987-2007 and Dr Crabtree from 2007 - present (see earlier references). The former did not receive a salary (see 2007 accounts linked above).</li> <li></li> <li> Added for balance.</li> <li>Suggest paragraph: "Amanda van Eck Duymaer van Twist cites a report "The Interfaith Industry" on the Inter Faith Network and other groups, which was published by Sam Westrop of "Stand for Peace" in November 2013, and launched in the House of Lords. She writes that the report "attacked some of its former members, notably one of its Co-Chairs, Dr Manazir Ahsan [of the Islamic Foundation], and other Executive Committee members for their links with organizations that it perceived to be extremist...and condemned the IFN's Director for not challenging this"." either be deleted or moved to a new section headed 'criticism' and presented with countervailing views. Appears one-sided, and also does not seem to fit or make sense in current location.</li> <li>Suggest sub-section 'Charity Commission Complaint' be removed as unbalanced, or moved to a new section headed 'criticism' and presented with counter arguments. Suggest also sub-section be re-named or citations added, as no references provided verify that a Charity Commission complaint has been made. Indeed, this article https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/interfaith-charity-reports-facing-closure-amid-threats-to-20-year-government-support.html from 17 January 2024 notes "...the Charity Commission told Civil Society it had not fielded any complaints about the organisation." Further, there are several other inaccuracies in section, includng: <ul> <li></li> <li>The text "Member of Parliament, Bob Blackman, stated during a debate in the House of Commons on 10 January 2024 that there had been "criticisms of the Inter Faith Network – not necessarily about its aims, but about the way it has been run" and he stated, "I have also heard criticism of the way it is being run"." is missing its citation (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-01-10/debates/DDF93113-52B2-4777-91C3-E04D46E1C792/InterFaithNetworkForTheUK). It selectively quotes Bob Blackman MP, who actually said "However, there have been criticisms of the Inter Faith Network—not necessarily about its aims, but about the way it has been run. I have had supportive comments from some elements in Harrow to say what a wonderful job it is doing, but I have also heard criticism of the way it is being run." It also elevates a fringe opinion that runs counter to the majority view expressed at the Parliamentary Adjournment Debate. Ten Members of Parliament spoke in favourable terms about the IFN (see link).</li> </ul> </li> <li> Added fuller quote from press release (https://www.interfaith.org.uk/news/inter-faith-network-for-the-uk-imminent-closure)</li> <li>The text "An article in The Sunday Telegraph "revealed that officials at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had also been angered" with the Inter Faith Network, and that in an IFN email sent to member groups "IFN's co-chairs, Canon Hilary Barber and Narendra Waghela, referenced the controversy, saying that 'funding is not the only issue'...noting there was 'some indication of anger on the part of some that IFN has not aligned itself with particular positions or stood in support of them'"." does not seem relevant to this section. The Sunday Telegraph piece predates the announcement that closure may be imminent. Suggest moving to a new section on 'criticisms'. It is also unclear what the 'referenced controversy' is in this paragraph.</li> </ol> BCY001 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have made appropriate edits for WP:NPOV, including accommodating somewhat nitpicking points. Most of the rest of the above editing suggestions reflect your disagreement as an IFN Employee and supporter with the viewpoints expressed by independent and reliable sources, which are published in national newspapers and scholarly journals.  You are if course entitled to your opinion, but as noted by user Skywatcher68 when s/he reverted the edits of the user who started this whole chat: "Undid revision 1207846884 by 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24 (talk) everything appears to be reliably sourced. Please discuss at Talk:The Inter Faith Network before removing again". Harderland (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, some of your amendments have improved the piece, although the NPOV issue remains unresolved. All of my suggestions are also fully referenced, and a number of references included in the piece appear dubious and not 'reliable'. It also appears you have a particular point of view, as despite clearly referenced evidence to the contrary, your edit continues to assert that Dr Crabtree was Director for 4 decades.
 * Re: the comment by Skywatcher68, that is what prompted the creation of my post on the talk page. BCY001 (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you are an Employee of the Inter Faith Network, I suggest you take a look at Harriet Crabtree's own public LinkedIn profile which shows her in post, first as Deputy Director then sole Executive Director, and thus remaining in a leadership post within the IFN for the whole decadal history of the organisation from 1990 to the present 2024.
 * https://www.linkedin.com/in/harriet-crabtree-40092429/
 * As already noted, independent third party reliable sources include published peer-reviewed academic books and journals, national and church newspapers, etc, which have expressed a range of views about the Inter Faith Network, some of which IFN Employees and others with conflict of interest connections to the IFN may not like. Harderland (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for editing to make clear that Harriet Crabtree was not 'sole Executive Director' for 4 decades in response to my comment above. Your 11am edit makes the position clearer. I am, however, re-adding the NPOV notice, as the conditions for removal have not been met. BCY001 (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Edits Proposed by BCY001 and 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24
I'm afraid I have to say something about the editing and proposed edits by the users BCY001 and 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24

Both are plainly Inter Faith Network supporters with vested interests and BCY001 has admitted that they are a paid Employee of the Inter Faith Network

However, despite this and WP:COI user BCY001 who is an Inter Faith Network Employee has continued to add contested editing tags to the article.

First of all it is important to make the basic and obvious point that the Inter Faith Network is a controversial organization. If it weren't a controversial organization the UK government wouldn't have very publicly cut off its funding citing "reputational risk" and "serious concerns" by the state. There is an abundance of WP:RELIABLE reliable secondary sources about these various controversies over years (not just primary sources off the Inter Faith Network website) which other wiki editors have noted are peer-reviewed books and journals published by respected academic publishers, and national newspapers - such as multiple Sunday Telegraph articles written by its in-house political correspondents.

A very well attested political tactic of the Inter Faith Network Director and Co-Chairs and Employees is the tactic of using WP:WEASEL weasel words under the guise of wanting to improve accuracy of something said about the IFN, like on this Wikipedia page, but actually aiming to force a reliable source they don't like to be discarded entirely, and then to use this to discard the source entirely and then replace it and say something entirely FALSE. I've seen this IFN tactic over and over again in the way Inter Faith Network supporters with a conflict of interest respond to well-sourced comment by national newspapers, books and journals.

Here are a couple of examples:

Under their proposed Edit 4, user BCY001 the Employee of the Inter Faith Network objects to the suggestion that Harriet Crabtree was a Director from 1990 up to the present for 4 decades, which I believe is the essential point. She has been a Director of the organization as Director under whatever internal job title for her directorship for 4 decades and exercised control over the Inter Faith Network.

BCY001 and 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24 instead try to undermine this well attested basic fact by picking holes in relation to the precise Director job title for Crabtree used by authors in reliable sources and Wikipedia editors during the 4 decades of her directorship - as Director/Deputy Director/Executive Director. Instead BCY001 and 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24 would try to use this tactic to claim that Crabtree was NOT a Director during this time and they prefer that the plainly MISLEADING AND FALSE statement is edited in instead which BCY001 proposes "In 1990, Harriet Crabtree joined the IFN staff becoming Director / Executive Director in 2007". The untruth of this has already been exposed by user Harderland citing Crabtree's self-published CV on LinkedIn.

In fact, Harriet Crabtree in reams and reams of correspondence since 1990 and before 2007, has never referred to herself as anything other than "Director" of the Inter Faith Network and her designation "Executive Director" was only put in place more recently to distinguish her paid job title from the government regulatory title of "Directors" of the Inter Faith Network who are the unpaid Directors of the company and charity "The Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom". BCY001 would have a MISLEADING AND FALSE statement in the wiki article replace the true one, which somehow implies that Crabtree only became a "Director" of the IFN (whatever the exact Director job title) in 2007 - something that an Employee of the Inter Faith Network would naturally know to be wholly untrue.

So this is the first example of weasel words and picking holes with a view to actually changing a true edit to a false statement. Another example is the outrageous suggestion implied by BCY001 under their proposed Edit 9 that an academic publication about the Inter Faith Network that is published by a respected academic publishers should be removed ENTIRELY because BCY001 claims that Brian Pearce and Harriet Crabtree were not "salaried Directors" of the Inter Faith Network. Is BCY001 as an Employee of the Inter Faith Network seriously suggesting that throughout the period from 1987 for Pearce and from 1990 onwards for Crabtree they never drew any salary and just worked for free as full-time Directors of the Inter Faith Network on a voluntary basis??? Working full-time as the Director of an organisation that has been funded in several millions of dollars by the UK government??? Seriously???

It is known that following his RETIREMENT Pearce would come back and offer advice, etc, to the Inter Faith Network, something very common in many organizations, and likely recent charity accounts will reflect the old man coming back to the office as a volunteer. But the evident weasel words being used here have the same aim as the above example, and is the same political tactic I have seen from those with a conflict of interest relationship with the Inter Faith Network - pick niggly holes in a reliably sourced statement or opinion as a political tactic in order to force it to be discarded in entirety and then replace it with an entirely FALSE statement.

Actually, the large amounts of money paid to Harriet Crabtree by the Inter Faith Network charity over the years are a subject discussed in independent and reliable sources, and potentially warrant inclusion in the wiki article. In any event, the government funding to the Inter Faith Network has been terminated and the Trustees are tomorrow due to confirm their decision to close the organization. KingKuru (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is fairly evident from your response that you also have a conflict of interest and are clearly someone with an axe to grind against the organisation. I have declared my conflict transparently. You have not.
 * Your response above does not engage with the substance of the suggested edits, nearly all of which contain references you ignore.
 * You are also falsely representing some of the proposed edits. For example, your claim above ""In 1990, Harriet Crabtree joined the IFN staff becoming Director / Executive Director in 2007". The untruth of this has already been exposed by user Harderland citing Crabtree's self-published CV on LinkedIn." This is not true. The text of the article as I found it, which the change logs clearly show is a result of your edits, was as follows:
 * "'The Inter Faith Network was a political-religious group which was founded in 1987 by Director and Deputy Director, Brian Pearce and Harriet Crabtree, the latter then continuing and remaining in post as sole Executive Director throughout the whole four decade history of the organisation.'"
 * This is false information. As I have already demonstrated - and you now appear to agree - a) Harriet Crabtree was not involved with the organisation at all until 1990 and b) Harriet Crabtree was not the Director until 2007. Therefore c) it is complete nonsense to refer to Harriet Crabtree as "sole Executive Director throughout the whole four decade history of the organisation." As noted previously, these facts are clear from the following two sources: a) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03443823/filing-history?page=14 (full accounts for year ending 31 Dec 2007) b) https://www.interfaith.org.uk/uploads/20anniversary.pdf (p.29).
 * You are correct to note that the terms 'Director' and 'Executive Director' describe the same role at IFN - it is the role that in larger charities is now usually referred to as CEO, and that is not the same as the a Deputy Director role. If your intention is to suggest that Harriet Crabtree held a leadership or senior role in the charity from 1990 onward, then say that. As written, it appeared to suggest the charity had only ever had one CEO, which is false.
 * As to my comments about salary, you are again misrepresenting what I actually wrote, which is "The former did not receive a salary." This refers to Brian Pearce and is correct. This can be seen in IFN's accounts during the period he was Director. Those from 1998 onward are viewable at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03443823/filing-history (prior to which IFN was an unincorporated charity). Note 1.(e) to the 1998 accounts, for example, state the following: "Intangible income represents the value attributed to the services of the voluntary director of the charity during the year." Notes of a similar kind can be seen in subsequent accounts filings.
 * You may wish to familiarise yourself with the conditions for removal of the NPOV notice before removing it again. The fact that there is ongoing discussion and disagreement about the neutrality of the article on these pages means the conditions are not met. BCY001 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus
Following recent decision by reviewer AlphaBetaGamma concerning the WP:COI user's edit request, I have added an Infobox since the Inter Faith Network is now closed completely, and the page cites throughout extensively from WP:RELIABLE sources giving different the viewpoints that are published in those sources, as per WP:NPOV. Harderland (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah agreed. Irmellion (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur that consensus is overdue, and am happy enough with the current content and balance of the article, and to collaborate in any further edits that need doing. TheWritingIsOnTheWall (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough material in the article on the influence of the Inter Faith Network in government, and also not enough material about Harriet Crabtree's connections as an Anglican to other Church of England-controlled interfaith initiatives, and her role in that agenda. For example, Crabtree sat on the Board of the continuing national Anglican owned "Near Neighbours" interfaith project, and had her fingers in the Lambeth Palace-led Hindu Muslim Forum and Christian Muslim Forum, and she went out of way to destroy other projects not on her agenda.  There's also published material in reliable sources about the manipulation by Crabtree and other IFN officers of board nominations and elections.  So this needs more work.  But, with the issue of the COI user, yes I'm happy for consensus on the current edit. KingKuru (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the addition of the infobox is helpful. I don't agree yet that the piece has achieved balance, and it still seems skewed toward the views of the organisation's detractors. I have set out a number of areas where change would be helpful and no substantive engagement on this page has followed except on a couple of the more minor points. The longest response is clearly from someone with a very negative view of the organisation. That is a view they are entitled to hold, but it is obviously not neutral.
 * I also dispute that some of the references are WP:Reliable, having noted above that some of the 'references' are in fact dead if you bother to follow the link chain, and one is a report from a highly WP:Dubious right wing 'think tank'. The article is in a more balanced state than I first found it, but I think there is a way to go before it can be described as properly neutral. BCY001 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to BCY001 (talk) for your response. The reviewing admin AlphaBetaGamma writes:
 * "Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first".
 * The WP:COI user has written:
 * 1. "I have set out a number of areas where change would be helpful and no substantive engagement on this page has followed except on a couple of the more minor points".
 * 2. "I also dispute that some of the references are WP:Reliable, having noted above that some of the 'references' are in fact dead if you bother to follow the link chain, and one is a report from a highly WP:Dubious right wing 'think tank'".
 * To address the second point first, very simply, the vast majority of the 30-odd references are from respected academic publishing houses/journals and from national British newspapers and Church/Jewish newspapers. The citation from the Gatestone Institute article essentially states the opinion of the article's author that "By championing these Islamists as the 'voice' of British Islam, the Inter Faith Network falsely legitimizes these extremist groups".  The very same opinion is expressed by other published authors.  No primary links from the Wikipedia article to any references are dead, none at all.  The links that you BCY001 (talk) have provided are mainly to the Inter Faith Network website, which site contains dozens of secondary dead end links.
 * To address the first point you BCY001 (talk) make about "Some Proposed Changes", as the reviewer AlphaBetaGamma has noted, "Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented".
 * Other points you make under your "Some Proposed Changes" like you say "The charity is not closed, but has announced a decision to move toward closure after 22 February if funding is not received" have been overtaken by events. The Inter Faith Network is now fully closed.
 * The rest of your "Proposed Changes" are requests by you to wholesale delete or diminish fully cited criticisms of the Inter Faith Network which have been published in diverse reliable academic publications and newspapers. This rather appears to reflect your bias as an Employee of the Inter Faith Network against the views expressed by academics and journalists in those WP:RELIABLE sources about your Employer.  I think your proposals to wholesale censor entire quotes from indisputably WP:RELIABLE sources just cos you don't Iike them is what has got other editors riled up and annoyed.  Other stuff like what other editors see in Talk as your nitpicking about what Harriet Crabtree's exact Director job title was Director/Executive Director/Deputy Director at different points, all seems to point towards those same biases and a perceived agenda to remove reliably published criticisms of the IFN and its leadership.
 * It comes down to the fact that the Inter Faith Network was a highly controversial organization which was defunded by the UK Secretary of State in the British government because of the cloud of controversy which surrounded it, as reflected in the national media coverage. I appreciate as an Employee you're not happy about that happening, and you want to remove or diminish or conceal published criticisms of the IFN. The Wikipedia article also quotes many published statements from the IFN trustees, members and supporters of the IFN about how unhappy they are at the government decision.  The Wikipedia article publishes both points of view given in WP:RELIABLE sources.
 * Excluding WP:COI biases, I think there is overall consensus on the current edit as it stands, and we can't just obstruct that consensus because of COI Employee bias. Irmellion (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we've got as far as we can with the article, which as different users like Skywatcher68 (talk) commented back in February '24 "everything appears to be reliably sourced" WP:RELIABLE, when s/he reverted the edits of another IFN supporter user 2A00:23C6:1492:3701:8036:809A:2C16:FC24, and raised a WP:COI query on their talk page. Since then, user AlphaBetaGamma
 * has responded to the WP:COI user BCY001 edit request. Given that everything is reliably sourced and, as already noted, the Inter Faith Network's demise and government criticism and objections to the IFN are all on the public record, all the WP:COI user now appears to want in their edit "list", is for reliably sourced material to be removed or marginalized.  There is sufficient and clear consensus that nothing like that should happen. Harderland (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above - happy to continue to work with other editors to add material, including adding more pro-IFN views which might be published in independent sources, rather than just on IFN's own website. But no censorship of the reliable published newspaper and journal sources which critique IFN.  There's enough consensus by now to remove the NPOV tag. TheWritingIsOnTheWall (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Irmellion for taking the time to engage on this.
 * I think there remain significant issues with the piece, and the overall tenor is very negative. Nearly every section seems to be framed from the POV of the organisation's critics, which does not make it neutral but is rather an elevation of particular voices in order to paint an overly negative picture. It is striking that despite the piece being much longer now than 6 months ago, there is very little about what the organisation actually did for 37 years.
 * There also seems to be some confusion about what makes something well referenced beyond simply including footnotes/ links. For example, the entire section headed 'Charity Commission Complaint' claims that there have been (at least?) two complaints about the organisation, one on the condition of anonymity. The only two references supporting this entire section say absolutely nothing about a Charity Commission complaint. So irrespective of whether or not the sources cited are 'reliable', they simply don't support the claims in that section at all. And frankly the reference to one being 'under Commission-protected conditions of anonymity' suggests inside knowledge that wouldn't be in the public domain anyway.
 * On the Gatestone Institute reference, as noted above, the '2007 survey' referred to both in the article and in the GI report does not seem to exist. The reference link from the GI does not go anywhere. It is of course the case that links can stop working over time, including on the IFN's website, but should a Wikipedia reference rely on link chains that have long since stopped working? Can the link be updated to one that does work? If there are links from the article to the IFN website that lead to dead ends I'm happy to try and resolve that. BCY001 (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already been said by other editors a few times that if there is stuff out there in independent reliable news and journal sources about IFN's great amazing work - that isn't just self-promotion from the IFN's own website or the websites of its allies/members - then this can be added to the article.
 * A cursory Googling of "The Inter Faith Network" for the first couple of Google pages shows media that has already been fully referenced in the Wikipedia article, and mainly focuses on the controversies that led to IFN's closure. I think the point is that IFN was defunded by the government partly because of criticism that for 37 years it had received millions of pounds from the state, and did relatively little given the vast amount of money it took - and that lack of work, shows in the public reporting.
 * But that isn't what this is about, adding material about IFN's achievements. What this is about is that BCY001's edit list isn't about adding anything, only about targeting reliable sources which they don't like and wanting them censored.
 * As I commented in chat previously, they tried this tactic of nitpicking a minor issue to do with Harriet Crabtree's exact HR job title of Director in order to censor that point, they tried to nitpick about other published academic references that were critical of the IFN to do with how much Crabtree and Pearce got paid in order to censor that reliable source. Now they're nitpicking over Sam Westrop's article which expresses the author's opinion, and trying to get that wholesale censored just cos there is a secondary link in the article which is no longer working - something that happens ALL THE TIME on the news websites of CNN, BBC, NBC, etc as well as IFN's own website.  These tactics all appear to me to be rather cynical and calculated, as I've commented in chat before.
 * So yes, if there are independent reliable sources, not the IFN's own website or those of its usual obsequious allies/members, which report on all the great stuff IFN has done with all the millions of pounds it's taken, then the COI editor can suggest them to be added to the article. A Google of the subject shows clearly that the current Wikipedia article reflects the public reality of what's been reported by independent sources.
 * The COI user's BCY001 list includes a number of edit proposals which have either been done already as the review admin AlphaBetaGamma has already said.
 * Firstly, BCY001 wants the article changed because "the charity is not closed". It is closed now.  Then they go on...
 * 1. Inter Faith Week was copied by IFN from Scottish Interfaith Week. Done.
 * 2. COI user BCY001 wants to censor material in the leading paragraph despite the fact that user Skywatcher68 had already put in code saying "No citations are required in the article lead per MOS:LEADCITE, as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be. Do not add missing-citation tags like to the lead. If necessary,  can be used, or the content removed".
 * 3. Wants section names changed
 * 4. Wants mention that there was very, very briefly a Scottish Anglican Co-Chair, while for 4 decades the Co-Chair has always been Anglican Church of England. Done
 * 5. Wants mention that IFN started getting government money from 2001. Done.  Also wants censorship of the fact that the IFN listed members include the Muslim Council of Britain, Islamic Foundation and Vishva Hindu Parishad.  If you're embarrassed to have them listed as your paid up members, why are you trying to censor others from pointing out the fact that they are members, and named as such on your own website???
 * 6. Wants to censor the entire Gatestone reference and Sam Westrop's expressed opinion, just cos of the spurious reason and censorship tactic mentioned above to do with secondary links.
 * 7. Tries to censor the academic analysis by a Lancaster University professor, who criticises the IFN, saying the criticism is "unbalanced".
 * 8. Wants to censor the legal Druid discrimination issue and the links to the legal documents where IFN was threatened will legal action unless they changed their membership policy, which IFN caved in and did.
 * 9. Uses some spurious nitpicking thing about salaries paid to Crabtree and Pearce to attempt to censor an entire academic reference by a Muslim academic, and the opinions expressed in it.
 * 10. Wants to edit the bit where IFN member bodies complained to the government about the IFN.
 * 11. Wants to challenge the Sunday Telegraph journalist's article by pushing an unpublished statement from the IFN's own website.
 * 12. Wants to wholesale censor a reference by an English religious studies professor in her published paper which criticises the IFN.
 * 13. Wants to cut out criticism of the IFN which is made on the public record.
 * 14. Wants to quote again from the IFN's own website about the closure dates. No longer relevant as events have moved on.
 * 15. Yet again, wants to censor criticism of the IFN in the Sunday Telegraph by its political correspondent.
 * "Suggest deletion of the following paragraphs, remove reference, move as unbalanced, does not seem relevant, fringe view, one-sided...blah, blah" one reliable source academic journal or newspaper reference after another... While the public media out there clearly shows up the controversies of the IFN.
 * Is this someone trying to "improve" the Wikipedia article??? Or rather is it a rather cynical and calculated ploy which I've commented on previously to nitpick as a tactic to censor criticism of this COI user's employer.
 * I'm removing the NPOV as after so many reviews and comments by experienced users like Skywatcher68 and AlphaBetaGamma, and consensus between other editors, other editors who have come to consensus can't be held hostage to it. If COI user BCY001 has any genuinely independent sources about the IFN and all the great stuff it's done to add then they can let us know in chat to include them, and I'm sure folks will oblige.  But I'm done with these cynical "tactics", when the current article reflects different viewpoints all of which are referenced and reflect the public media on the subject matter. KingKuru (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry @KingKuru but once again you have written great screeds, tipping into the ad hominem, without actually engaging with any of the points made in my most recent post. BCY001 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted edit by WP:COI editor BCY001 (talk). Do not edit this article as you are clearly disclosed as Employee of the subject of the article, and have a clear Conflict of Interest.  See Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.  You may make edit suggestions on Talk like you have before.  As a WP:COI user you are not arbiter of consensus on the article against the consensus of other editors. KingKuru (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi BCY001 (talk) as other editors have suggested a few times now, please post on Talk links to independent reliable sources on the Inter Faith Network which you would like to be added to the article - more than happy to oblige with adding this material you suggest. Harderland (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)