Talk:International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] POV

The article currently reads like a flyer made by the IFAW itself. Many words describing their good work with their awesome state-of-the-art boat, that kind of thing. Looking at the page history, the current article is basically the work of one editor. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ye i agree. Lots of good stuff there too though, however, time to do some npov editing. Bib 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Need sources, and i tried my best to not get pov the other way, and stay neutral. Need sources, and probably a section for critisism, which there is always alot of, when it comes to big organizations. Bib 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

IFAW is clearly using this page as a free promo - whoever 'jbouvier' is is clearly working for them and deleted a critical line without noting the deletion. See the revision that was made on the 25th of Dec 2006.

Not clearly working for them IMO. The revision there, made by someone who has "tested" and spammed some other articles. It was not sourced either, so 'jbouvier' was probably right in removing it, as it was most likely false. Bib 14:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A Google search reveals a J C Bouvier (owner of www.jcbouvier.com), a consultant who also claims to be the "online community coordinator" for IFAW - thus he clearly works for them. If you don't believe me go to

http://podcamp.pbwiki.com/PodCampBoston2Registrants?raw=1

and look near the bottom of the page. When I have time I will be posting full details of the money-grabbing activities of IFAW's founder and the salary of its CEO - all referenced. We'll see then if Bouvier and his cohorts clear that out, too! -unsigned comment by 41.241.124.123

Bouvier doesn't make it a secret that he works for them (he said so much on my talk page). We should be careful not to let this article go the other way: every large organisation is criticised, so there is room for a criticism section in every article about an organisation, but criticism shouldn't be the main subject of the article. (and certainly not unsourced criticism.)-- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally have been periodically getting spam messages from IFAW asking for money (not picked up by spam filter) and I am not signed up for any newsletters or anything. The emails are infrequent enough that I haven't taken the time to block them. I understand that some guy commenting on the internet isn't a source to use in an encyclopedia, but people should take these sort of practices into consideration.