Talk:British Heart Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Animal testing controversy
There has recently been some controversy with the BHF over their extensive use of animal testing in research, mostly raised by PETA much of which the organisation (BHF) has admitted was unneccesary. Should this be mentioned in the article? Beno1000 20:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be mentioned here, There are two criticisms that spring to mind.
- The BHF fund animal research, which is controversial and should be mentioned here. (better reference than this anyone? PETA are so nutty that I don't really trust any 'facts' they present)
- They have a lot of money flowing through them, that tends to bring out the leeches, so some of their income undoubtedly goes to private profit instead of charitable works. The latter is a general criticism of large modern NGO's.
- This article reads uncomfortably like a BHF press release, rather than an NPOV encyclopedia entry, (eg. ..is leading the battle.. etc.)
- EasyTarget 09:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legacies
I removed a comment that the majority of the BHF funding comes from legacies, and added a link to the accounts summary in their annual report. If I read that right only 40% or so of the income comes from legacies, not a majority of it. Sorry to gripe over language technicalities, but this statement was a bit misleading.
A better phrase would be something like 'with legacies providing the largest share of this at 40%, general fund raising provides for 31%, with the remainder coming from public funding and commercial ventures.'
I believe it's better to keep it simple at this stage (unless BHF funding is in question, or otherwise noteworthy), so just providing a reference link is sufficient, anybody with sufficient motivation can follow it. But if anybody wants to expand that section, I'm cool with it too. EasyTarget 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
