I got a lot out of it despite the obvious lack of references, which is what sometimes happens when people well acquainted with a subject write about it, a very good detailed article with few references. As long as you don't start fighting one another, I see little harm in some "puffing". Who better than someone acquainted with a subject to look up the appropriate references? Conflict of interest is more than involvement. It is seeking, and attempting to maintain advantage, through skewing the content of the article. Insisting on it; thus saddling the encyclopedia with an inferior article which is strongly defended. As to the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, who objectively comments on it? I ask because I do not know. Such objective comments are the appropriate source. What is the proper content of objective comments about a religious order or a congregation? Who studies either and measures them? What can you say that is useful or sensible to the rest of the world, who is neither English, Irish, nor Catholic? Fred

On 12/22/07, michael west <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's a question of priority. I think we'd rather have a mediocre article than no article. I think we'd rather have an ok article with "conflict of interest" than no article. Don't get too worked up: the "conflict of interest" rules are there to provide guidance when there is both someone from a company writing about the company, and someone who's objecting. In your small case, it sounds like there's a decent article, which probably mildly violates NPOV and V, but save your hand-wringing for more serious cases. Steve