Talk:The Hunger Project/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proposed approach towards resolving this dispute

  • I have reviewed Wikipedia and propose that the Unicef page serve as a model for ensuring that both a Wiki-appropriate overview of The Hunger Project as well as the criticism is included, and have rewritten the piece appropriate to that model, focusing on facts. Each incident of criticism from the 1970s and 1980s does not constitute a "fact" about The Hunger Project or a criticism, and is not appropriate here - what is appropriate is an honest gist of the criticism, which has now been included.Jcoonrod 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a completely different organization, with its own separate history and ethical culture. "Each incident of criticism from the 1970s and 1980s..." and indeed through to the present do indeed constitute relevant factual information that would be of great interest to the average Wikipedia reader. The reader should be allowed access to the information, and be left free to make his/her own decision. To that end, the subheadings of Favorable and Unfavorable headings under the external links section provide yet another way to maintain a more balanced, NPOV approach to this controversial issue. Smeelgova 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there is a dillemma we need to resolve here. I'm disappointed that you took the route of reverting rather than engaging with a good-faith model that has already proven to work on Wiki (Unicef). If we stick with your approach to the history, then I would need to balance it with what you call "facts" of equal weight from our 29 year history, and the history section would become 150 pages long. For example, should every interaction with the anti-cult movement bear more or less weight than every interaction with leaders of African governments, or with each speaking engagement at the UN, or each commendation letter we receive from world leaders? Based on this, I too will revert and provide you another opportunity to work within a framework that may actually work.Jcoonrod 11:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The page was not simply reverted, information was incorporated from the corporate governance section into the current article. As for the "Unicef" model, I sincecely disapprove of your method of simply deleting all information present in the current article, and rewriting the article to a shorter, more positively biased version as you see fit. Many other editors besides present company have complained about this. If other editors have contributed over time to an article, and that article is then recondensed by one sole user, that seems to be an invalidation of the work of many other people, trumped by the views of the one. Smeelgova 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, energetic editing and rewriting it what Wikipedia is all about. I consider your format terribly unbalanced and unfair from the perspective of THP, although I am sure it seems fair from your perspective, which seems focused on early criticism of THP. That early criticism is definitely a fair subject, but given that we dispute the accuracy and even the legality of most of it, something other than merely linking or republishing is called for. Also - please see the note on your own discussion page regarding several of your links.Jcoonrod 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • On another topic, financial information published on charity websites is all identical and all comes from THP through our federal filings. Going through and finding a numerous links to the same information is intended to communicate what? That there is something wrong with the data? THP is quite proud of our good financial information and the good ratings given us by watchdog agencies.Jcoonrod 11:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • All information from the more balanced version of this article has come from multiple editor/contributors, and not simply one editor. The financial information is accurate and sourced, cited from multiple sources, both in the article and the external links section. 25% for administrative and fundraising expenses is widely considered to be too much of a margin, and 23.5% is certainly close to this. Smeelgova 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The information you and a few others are trying to inject is all based on one point of view about long-past associations, not about THP itself. Your opinions about overhead rates diverge with those of all known watchdog agencies, so they do not meet any authoritative opinion.Jcoonrod 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. The information that you have is one-sided and positively biased, whereas the information that myself and many others wish to contribute contains multiple points of view and is contributed to the article in a manner as most neutral and balanced as possible. Financial information is cited with a neutral reference explaining exactly why 23.5% for administrative and fundraising expenses is way too high relative to the federal norm for organizations.Smeelgova 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We obviously disagree, and would welcome a speedy resolution to this dispute that both informs readers what THP is, of the existence of you and other critics, and the salient points of your criticism. Wikipedia offers a series of steps - mediation and arbitration, with mediation being preferable, and so we propose mediation. This, of course would require your consent. Until this is resolved, let us use the Unicef-based structure which does achieve what I believe both of us would feel is fair.Jcoonrod 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Your model is not fair, and certainly not balanced towards both positive and negative viewpoints. Therefore it would not be most appropriate to use this structure.Smeelgova 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Smeelgova, do you agree to mediation?Jcoonrod 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be acceptable.Smeelgova 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We will need to reach a truce, which will require some compromise between our very different views of a structure that is not inherently biased through the mediation period. I could live some of your links but not with your timeline, which I feel creates an impression of the dispute rather than the actual substance of the dispute.Jcoonrod 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Smeelgova, you will need to "sign" that you agree to the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation.Jcoonrod 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days'." Understood.Smeelgova 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Smeelgova, please reply with suggestions on a truce format so that we do not waste time editing two completely different versions of the page.Jcoonrod 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be less confrontational for all parties involved to simply debate the issue, instead of addressing individual users' names directly.Smeelgova 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Parties to the mediation are expected to call a truce, which I believe will require some compromises. I feel strongly that your timeline section is an inherently biased structure as it portrays each time a person repeats your POV as a significant event in the history of THP rather than simply stating the substance of your POV. I also have expressed strong reservations about the inappropriateness of many of your links as misleading in the same way, but I could leave them during a truce, and as I read the proceedures we are expected to call a truce before the mediation.Jcoonrod 07:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The information represented in the timeline section is not my POV, but that of whoever the information is referring to. I have never personally stated my POV, other than to state that said information is relevant to the article and of interest to the reader. Let us keep this discussion civil and not refer to individuals' POV's, but rather to the relevant nature of the information at hand, and its usefulness to the reader. The links section has been structured in such a way as to allow for balance and NPOV, as has been done on other controversial articles.Smeelgova 08:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The issue is not whether it is your POV but whether the way you are presenting the timeline is a legitimate to what you've labeled it (a timeline of THP) or whether it is, instead, a biased presentation designed to imply that each publication of the POV in question is a significant part of the history of THP, which it is not.Jcoonrod 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And the timeline is presented in a factual, historically accurate manner. This is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper article, and historical information is relevant to the reader, if factually accurate.Smeelgova 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with this argument is that it could apply to any aspect of THP. The hundreds of steps involved in strengthening local democracy in Bangladesh would be of interest to many readers, as would the hundreds of steps in developing the epicenter strategy in Africa, or the hundreds of steps in developing a non-patronizing fundraising methodology for Third-world issues. There is a specialized audience who I know is very interested in the history of the media campaigns against all organizations with whom Mr. Erhard was ever associated, and Rick Ross's history is a good resource for those people.Jcoonrod 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Since no counter has been entered to this argument, I will assume it is true and edit accordingly. Jcoonrod 10:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. The points in time during which The Hunger Project received heavy criticism from multiple perspectives in the media and the internet are confusing when placed in prose format, and much clearer to the reader when shown in a timeline format. Every single step of the so-called "developing...fundraising methodology" seems simply like a way of trying to skirt the issue that The Hunger Project has received criticism and controversy from numerous reputable sources at numerous points in time. "There is a specialized audience who I know is very interested in the history of the media campaigns against all organizations with whom Mr. Erhard was ever associated, and Rick Ross's history is a good resource for those people." This statement is also skewed towards a positively biased POV. The Hunger Project cannot shy away from its origins and history, and Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training plays a key role in this article's history, origins, development and influences. In fact, if all "specialized audience"s could find necessary information on other proprietary websites, than in point of fact, wikipedia would not need to exist. By its very nature wikipedia will tend to show some information that is already available on other websites.Smeelgova 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For us to proceed to mediation, we need to agree on a truce format for the time being. You (Smeelgova) have asserted that you do not hold a negative POV, yet your record of contributions is exclusively devoted to a prodigious number of insertions of negative material about Werner Erhard and est onto dozens of pages that are all related to Werner Erhard (or which you have created). The insertions and formats that you say are "accepted" are, indeed, recent insertions by you. I have made it clear that I find your timeline approach to be particularly misleading and unacceptable, but have offered other concessions, which you have ignored. My personal POV would, of course, be for a format with none of your criticism, as I find the criticism particularly irrelevant and out of date. But I'm willing to work within the only relevant example I can find NOT created by you, namely, the Unicef page. Like THP, Unicef is an international organization. We have worked closely with Unicef for 29 years. Even your key colleague on your side of this dispute agrees that this is a better format. If you have another non-Smeelgova-created format you would like me to consider as a truc format, please give us a link to it.Jcoonrod 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The comment above by the prior commentator seems to be very confrontational, and addresses the user directly in a most negative manner. This does not foster a communal environment of intellectual discussion. The material posted about Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training on this and other pages was and will continue to be posted in a neutral language format, stating only the historical facts of the matter. A negative POV would simply be to state negative opinions RE: the particular article topic, which has not been done to date by this user. Though it is possible that the new "Unicef model" would work without a timeline, it would have to include a new section devoted to the controversy and criticism created by The Hunger Project over the years, including their lawsuits against numerous potential critics.Smeelgova 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Smeelgova, I carefully studied the etiquette rules and addressing individuals directly on discussion pages is entirely proper. My only intention is to have the facts on the table. The Unicef model has from the beginning very explicitely included a section on the old criticism.Jcoonrod 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressing another user directly may be appropriate per wikipedia, but certainly not in the manner in which the previous commentator has addressed the current user. The previous user has made insinuations as to the current user's postings, when all the current user has done is compile information, in an extremely neutral, factual language, from other readily available public sources. The user has not used any individual POV in the writing and language of the contributions. The "unicef model" certainly does not have enough information on criticism, The Hunger Project's aggressive legal campaigns against the media, press and individuals, and information regarding the organizations links and ties to Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training.Smeelgova 14:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The history of your edits to pages which you consider related is a matter of public record, and speaks for itself, and is relevant to the discussion of POV vs NPOV. The version you keep reverting to seems clearly to skewed a negative POV.Jcoonrod 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As does the history of the prior user. This user has not been reverting, but has in fact been steadily contributing more material to a more comprehensive version of all perspectives related to the article, positive and negative, in a neutral manner.Smeelgova 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The point of this discussion was to agree to a truce format. I have offered compromises. I have offered a format not devised by me. Neither I nor the only other recent party to this discussion agree with your assessment of your format. Please offer another.Jcoonrod 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of this other party. However, there is substantial material to be covered from the various perspectives, and the timeline and various sections on Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training do the job adequately. The "unicef model" barely mentions that there was some conflict, and that Erhard was involved. There is simply no mention of the entire origin factual history, related to Erhard, Joan Holmes, and Erhard Seminars Training, and also to the financial relationship between the two at the outset. It may be true that these events do not still occur today, but they are most certainly relevant to the factual origin history of the organization.Smeelgova 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So - am I to take it that NO other format is acceptable to you other than your own, that you are only willing to work within your own framework during the mediation period rather than make suggestions towards an interim truce framework? I hope this is not the case, but I don't know how else to understand your lack of responses to my questions and requests.Jcoonrod 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The timeline section has been changed to a heading Media Criticism & Response. This reflects the fact that the media events are not exactly integral to the history of The Hunger Project operations itself, but rather integral to Media Criticism & Response, an operation to which The Hunger Project devotes significant resources, based on current discussion, & historical letters by previous commentator & legal actions.Smeelgova 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I noticed - again, a unilateral step that I don't find very useful toward finding common ground. I would think using Wiki as a forum to publish your original research into every bad thing that has ever been published about THP (without the responses, apologies or corrections) certainly violates the NOR policy. I would think having your own website would be more appropriate - then Wiki could point to it. Meanwhile, rather than escalate the dispute by encouraging me to post the links to 5,000 independent media reports favorable to The Hunger Project, I implore you to reconsider and enter into an honest dialog. If there is any substance to this recitation of sensational headlines, then the article should inform the reader what that substance is, and point them to a history of it.Jcoonrod 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • One more thing - while it is true THP has a policy of not ignoring publication of false and defamatory information, your statement above misrepresents the significance of that effort. You have provided no substance behind your statements about our scant legal history, which I expect pales in comparison to that of most organizations of any size.Jcoonrod 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • While I continue to disagree with the format for all the reasons I have listed above, in the interests of pursuing mediation within a truce format, I will proceed to engage with it in hopes of clarifying some issues, discussion of which will be added below.Jcoonrod 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the issue here?

What I would like to discuss here is - what are you trying to attempt to achieve with your insertions into this article? It appears that you would like people to know that Werner Erhard was one of the founders of THP and that, as a result of that association, some individuals who disapproved of Mr. Erhard's est program orchestrated some strongly negative media attacks on The Hunger Project 25 years ago. Granted. But to argue that one tiny step in that long-ago negative media campaign somehow has the same weight in an encyclopedia article as a program in Bangladesh that mobilizes 60,000 trained village volunteers seems wrong. And anonymously attempting to harm the reputation of an organization that is helping millions of people overcome hunger and poverty by inventing a controversy that hasn't had relevance or even currency for 16 years also seems wrong.

The Hunger Project is not an "issue." It doesn't have "sides." Like a person, THP has a reputation and that reputation should be based on the contribution it is making in the world. One should not attempt to sully a reputation because you don't like someone in its past.

The rule at Wiki is to build a consensus, and building consensus usually requires stepping back and agreeing on goals.Jcoonrod 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is correct that "the rule at Wiki is to build a consensus." However, most of the consensus so far seems to be that this article is too positively biased, and needs representation from both the positive AND negative aspects of its history and involvement with various other organizations. If it is "granted" and historically accurate information, then it is most certainly of interest to the reader in an encyclopedic article. What we are "trying to attempt to achieve" is to allow for representation of historical information that represents both sides of The Hunger Project's history and financial structure. Smeelgova 02:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible need for Administrator Intervention at The Hunger Project

There is a need for more balance, and both positive AND negative sides to be represented in this article on The Hunger Project.

Is there a way that we (Smeelgova, Descendall, Enkido, Pedant17, Rj, Drzeus, Jmabel), can go to Wikipedia Administrators to resolve the positively-biased one-sided view that Jcoonrod purports to keep posting up on The Hunger Project, and also complain about his repeated deletions both on the article and discussion pages? Smeelgova 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I, Jcoonrod , would certain welcome resolution of our dispute by the resolution mechanisms of Wikipedia. While there is no such thing as "administrator intervention" there are both mediation and arbitration procedures. I am sure that Wikipedia is not designed to be a forum for casting aspersions on a reputable organization. [added by Jcoonrod at 0243, 30 May 2006]
I certainly consider the "see also" items to be attempts at a guilt-by-association which the facts do not support. [added by Jcoonrod at 0245, 30 May 2006]
  • Wikipedia is a forum for discourse, and NPOV. I am certain that NPOV does not consist of a one-sided presentation of an organization, but rather attempts to look at the issue in both a positive AND negative light. At present, The Hunger Project article has too much of a positive-bias. Information that occurred prior to 1990 is still relevant and of the reader's interest. I do appreciate that we are now discussing the issue in a more positive manner, instead of simply deleting other contributors' comments as had been done in the recent past. Smeelgova 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is NOT a forum for discourse. It is an encyclopedia. Those who write it on it share a commitment to creating good encyclopedia articles. You have added material not about THP, but about early attacks on THP which is an entirely different subject. Are you willing to participate in the Wiki mediation process?Jcoonrod 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am removing links to illegally reprinted copyright material and, since Smeelgova did not address my comments about the see also links, I'm removing them again.Jcoonrod 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Material is available in the public space, and the reader will be interested in said material. If someone has another opinion, they should leave said material in the article, and simply add other additional information to it.Smeelgova 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jcoonrod commentary

Smeelgova - I am not convinced that what Oxfam-Canada did or did not do in 25 years ago is exactly a controversy - we have enormous support from the international community. So - I'm removing it and the "see also" section. Also, Joan Holmes was never a manager at est - she was a consulting educational psychologist. And I've removed "see also" as it doesn't link to things that are relevant to The Hunger Project.Jcoonrod 20:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The "See Also" section is relevant, other readers will find the other linked articles as interesting reads. And as there are no comments after the various links, there is no associated "innuendo", just links to other potentially interesting and relevant articles.Smeelgova 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Descendall - I'm going to leave some of your material here for now so that you have an opportunity to read the Wiki policies at WP:LOP which you have misrepresented below, after which we will attempt to agree on what is discussion and what is not. I suggest you remove the more uncivil comments yourselfJcoonrod 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You're going to leave my material here forever. You are not to edit the talk page in order to delete my argument in favor of my version of the article. Do not unilaterally edit my comments. --Descendall 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I concur. Open discussion should stay on the page as part of a viewable record. Smeelgova 07:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendall and Eikandal - Somehow, you have come across some false and misleading information on the internet, and you have taken it to be true. It is not. You are acting anonymously and have refused to discuss your specific assertions with me despite my repeated offers.

1. You do not have my permisson to copy my personal website into wiki, which I have removed.

2. You state below that there is a continuing association with est and Werner Erhard, which there is not and I am not aware of anyone claiming that there is,

3. I have also removed your inflammatory personal attacks on me, which are hardly "POV." Insults are not "points of view." As for your inserting Rick Ross's commentary into this article, yes, whenever anyone publishes false and defamatory information about a public charity, that charity has the duty to ask for it to be removed. That is hardly controversial, and it is a specious argument to complain about it. AOL stopped publishing Carol's piece because it violated their policy against publishing false and misleading information.

4. When in the past, people asserted the kinds of things you are asserting in newspapers, The Hunger Project sued for libel and won. There is nothing to hide about either THP's past or present, and I have no interest in doing so.

5. In my 29 years with The Hunger Project, I only know of good cooperation with Oxfam. Our AIDS program in Malawi is funded by Oxfam-Novib Netherlands. Jcoonrod 14:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted additions by Descendall of this article, and comments

Werner Erhard, the controversial founder of The Hunger Project, also founded est, which formed the basis for the techniques used by Landmark Education.

This is absolutely true, and I don't understand how anyone could deny it. Your own personal webpage, which I assume you will soon be editing, openly admits that Erhard founded THP.

Some participants in the the Hunger Project have noted similarities in the philosophies and memberships of the groups.

This is also true. There are scores of webpages run by former THP workers complaining that the groups are similar.

(not true - see above) [Added by Jcoonrod at 1648 29 May 2006]

Like est, The Hunger Poject stresses individual responsibility and "empowerment" as ways to end hunger.

This is obvious. All you really have to do is read through THP's webpage to see that rather than distribute food, they are dedicated to the "empowerment" of people and things like that.

However representatives of The Hunger Project have taken pains to point out that Erhard ended his association with them in 1990.

I think that it's especially ironic that you, a representative of THP, insist on deleting this sentence in order to avoid mentioning Erhard's association with your group.

Even so, suggestions of "cult-like" affiliations continued to circulate, though any precise definition of the term is exceedingly difficult to come by.

"The Hunger Project" +Cult gets nearly 700 hits on google. It's hard for me to imagine that you really deny that there are suggestions circulating.

In 2003, a web page account by Carol Giambalvos of her experience with the project during the eighties was temporarily removed following a complaint from The Hunger Project.

Again, absolutely correct. You shot off a letter to AOL and AOL quickly pulled to plug to avoid being sued.

Elsewhere, criticisms of The Hunger Project have variously been that it is inneffective and bourgeois.

This is the one part of the article that you have deleted that I'm not so sure about. A whole lot of people seem to think that THP is totally ineffective. However, the "bourgeois" thing seems a little out of place. It feels like some sort of Marxist rethoric.

Nevertheless, many well-respected international organizations such as Oxfam International continued to believe that The Hunger Project accomplishes little in the way of ending hunger. The Canadian branch of Oxfam, for example, refuses to endorse any projects that are endorsed by The Hunger Project.

Since you're apparantly the head hancho at THP, you'd certainly be in a position to tell us all if this is true or not. Did the Canadian branch of Oxfam refuse to endorse projects sponsored by THP or not? If they did, it would certainly be noteable for this article.

The Hunger Project is noteable for its strenous efforts to purge criticism of it from the internet and other media. The Christian Century, the fifth estate, Mother Jones, Rick Ross, and AOL have all recieved complains from The Hunger Project for publishing articles on the connection between est and The Hunger Project. The group also regularly edits Wikipedia in an effort to delete negitive viewpoints about The Hunger Project.

The fact that the head of THP is apparantly actually getting paid to use NGO time to engage in an edit war on wikipedia seems to be proof enough of this for me. I also work for a non-profit NGO, and I can tell you that we use every second of our time to do the greatest amount of good, and would never sit around on wikipedia editing articles. As a matter of fact, I'd almost certainly be fired if I was caught doing that. It seems to me to be extremely notable that THP spends so many resources trying to shut up critics rather than trying to get food into the mouths of poor people. Of course, that assumes that you really are trying to get food to poor people rather than to have them sit around and think about how they should be empowered and that if they aren't their hunger is their own damn fault, which is, coincidently, the principal idea behind est.

Deletions on talk page

Do NOT delete my explinations of why I favor my own version of this article from the talk page. Doing so is a serious violation of policy, and if you do it again I'm going to go to the admins. --Descendall 16:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikiquette official Wikipedia policy page reminds us: "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". Pedant17 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

  • Pedant17, I liked your use of formatting on The Hunger Project, I think the article is finally coming together in a coherent way, and reflecting a more balanced positive and negative approach. Thank you. Smeelgova 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Smeelgova. I think it may help to separate the bland summary introduction from the past situations and from the current scenario - we can then work on each individually, with fewer clashes about image and reputation. Having a separate history section also gives us a place in which to trace -- in as much detail as required -- how the former situation turned in to the present one. We could do with a lot more citations to follow this. - Pedant17 01:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • On that note, I've added a Historical Timeline section to The Hunger Project article. I've sourced much of the material, and used language that states information in a simple, bland, factual, and NPOV manner. You are correct that we should work on more citations. Smeelgova 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Input

Administrator Input

  • There are several editors to this article (Smeelgova, Descendall, Enkido, Pedant17, Rj, Drzeus, among others) who share the view that the article needs to have a balanced, NPOV equal weighting of the positive and negative history to this organization. There is also one user in particular (Jcoonrod) who keeps reverting the article and deleting other editors' contributions, without fully respecting policy. I noticed that you had once edited the article closer to its inception. Perhaps you could take a look at the discussion and history and allow for a more balanced article? I have tried to separate the various views into sections within the article, and provide a space for favorable and unfavorable links to views regarding the organization in the external links section. I also believe that all of the timeline and commentary on the connections with Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training are relevant and of interest to the reader. Thank you so much for your time. Smeelgova 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't have the time or inclination to really wade into this, but I'd certainly agree that Erhard and est are crucial to any honest history of the Hunger Project. Is that being disputed? Is he claiming that this is false, or just that for some reason it isn't worth reporting? There is a Mother Jones article from December 1978 that documents the connection well (I read it at the time, it was a good article, worth tracking down), and that at that time est was using Hunger Project as a recruiting tool. Conversely, according to [1] 8 years later MJ conceded that the Hunger Project had severed those ties and was no longer recruiting for est. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • "Erhard and est are crucial to any honest history of the Hunger Project." This is not being disputed, but the placement of this information in a crucial location and evident language is being disputed, as are any links to all of the sources you have cited above, including the Dec. 1978 Mother Jones article, among many other sources. The user has claimed that this issue is also not worth reporting as it is in the past, but many other users have maintained that the full history of the organization, (positive and negative) is definitely relevant. Thank you for the quick response. Smeelgova 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • "The user has claimed that this issue is also not worth reporting as it is in the past…" All I can say to that is this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Most of our articles are about the past. - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, Jcoonrod seems not to. Smeelgova 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Feel more than free to quote me, if that's any use, but this is exactly as far as I'm wading in. Best of luck. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your input. It helps that I am one of many users who share this opinion, and to hear your views on the issue as well is also validating. For now I will continue adding to the article and encouraging discussion on the talk page. Smeelgova 06:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs. Balanced POV

  • I'm somewhat concerned that some editors think that the way to compromise on this article is to have the same exact amount of "positive" information as "negitive" imformation about THP. I don't think this should be done. No one, for example, would argue that for every ten bad things said about Adolf Hitler, wikipedia is obliged to say ten good things. Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV, and saying things like "Here's ten anti-THP links to match the ten pro-THP links" isn't NPOV. --Descendall 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • All good points, however I do think to some extent in this issue you can represent both viewpoints for this article. This can hold true most especially for the external links section, where the article can show both favorable and unfavorable links. The reader can then choose where to seek more information external to the article.Smeelgova 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Descendall. The framework I proposed, based on the Unicef article, achieves NPOV and the "time line and a million links" format does not. Frankly, if I actually held the negative POV (as opposed to, say, creating a fog of doubt), I would want a Wiki article to clearly state the substance of my POV.Jcoonrod 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of agreement to the mediation

  • Smeelgova, you have added numerous parties to my application, some of whom have not been active for a long time on this page. Unless all parties agree with 7 days, the application will be rejected. Do you agree that, if they do not agree within 5 days that they can be removed?Jcoonrod 08:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please follow protocols stated at the top of this page, and post new headings at the bottom of the discussion page. As stated at the mediation page, we will wait and follow the guidelines and guidance of the mediation committee. Perhaps something will change within the time period allotted.Smeelgova 08:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Infringements

  • Those who are organizing attacks on THP from their websites have taken to illegally copying copyrighted materials from publishers who - upon learning that their articles were false and defamatory, or through changing their mind - have denied people the permission to re-publish them. This includes the article by Carol Giambalvo and the articles by David Houkema. WP:LOP requires content that is sourced authoritatively, not illegally.Jcoonrod 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To reference ex-cult Resource Center, "Copyrighted works are made available here under the 'fair use' exception of U.S. copyright law, for research and educational purposes only."[2] Wikipedia is clearly research for an educational purpose. Therefore, the information is valid and relevant to the article and information at hand.Smeelgova 15:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Reprinting a copyrighted article without permission on a website constitutes re-publication - not fair use - and is therefore illegal.Jcoonrod 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review[3]." This fits the criterion, and the links are therfore justified and legal. Smeelgova 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you agree that if a site is illegally reproducing material, that this should not be linked to as an authoritative reference in Wikipedia?Jcoonrod 15:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see above reference & quote RE: United States copyright law.Smeelgova 15:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not arguing here that reprinting in full in no way fits the fair use doctrine - the courts have already ruled on that - I am asking whether you agree that if a site is illegally treating copyrighted materials, then it's inappropriate to use it as an authoritative reference per the Wikipedia policies.Jcoonrod 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As stated above: It would be less confrontational for all parties involved to simply debate the issue, instead of addressing individual users directly. Therefore I refer again to the referenced material above, RE: United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material. Smeelgova 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Stated more simply, references to copyrighted materials should not be made to copies of that material, but to the material itself - only in that way could references be considered authoritative.Jcoonrod 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Restated from above: The links are valid, historically accurate, factual, and used in an NPOV manner. Referenced copyrighted material is legal through referenced United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material above. Reference to copyrighted material not necessarily available in original format on the internet is a common practice among wikipedia articles.Smeelgova 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The links in reference are to highly opinionated pieces by individuals not directly involved, purporting to include facts that have been disputed and proven to be false, copied onto sites with explicit strong agendas and advocating extreme views. In all ways these references violate the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources.Jcoonrod 16:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see referenced sources above. This links are legal, of interest to the reader, and relevant to the article. Prior statement by commentator regarding opinions of said websites is POV.Smeelgova 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the source you site clearly states that a key factor in fair use is "amount and substantiality" - if you cite a few lines, that's fair use - if you copy the whole thing, that violates fair use.Jcoonrod 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Given that the notification for mediation was done in such an odd way, with multiple edits to everyone's talk page, edits that are signed by someone other than the person who actually made the edits, notification given in places other than the bottom of the talk page where they belong, and involvment of parties who have not edited this page in a while, I think that the mediation has been hopelessly fouled up and should probably be abandoned. I'm thinking of actually switching and rejecting it just to give it a quick death rather than sit around and wait for the time frame to expire without everyone accepting, which is what will certainly happen. --Descendall 22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As I understand the process, the request was filed correctly - those edits are a required part of the process - and we can also remove those who do not want to participate. There seems to be no rule against adding or removing names prior to the Mediation Committee deciding whether to take on the mediation.Jcoonrod 12:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • As stated previously, I had copied the code for the Mediation notice from the original post (placed incorrectly at the top of my discussion page, but that is irrelevant at this point). Above mentioned users were notified based on their historical postings and potential interest in the discussion at hand. From the participation of at least two individuals not originally notified, there is apparent outside interest external to the two original parties. As for the other users, it is most probably best to wait at least a little while longer to afford them the benefit of the doubt, but I also would not be opposed to continuing the mediation after that with the four parties currently participating.Smeelgova 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree - let's give it until end of Tuesday UTC at which point I am willing to do the removals unless there is objection.Jcoonrod 12:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As stated last week (and without objection) the nonrespondents Rj and Drzeus have been removed from the request. Drzeus has made no contributions anywhere since 2004, and nothing from Rj anywhere since 4/06.Jcoonrod 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The status of our mediation request is that it has been accepted, but has not yet been assigned.Jcoonrod 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • More information is available at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hunger Project.Smeelgova 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Categories

  • There is no dispute over what THP is - an international, non-profit, charitable organization working in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Therefore any other categorizations constitutes a particularly bizarre method of impugning the integrity of THP.Jcoonrod 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for following proper protocol and adding a new heading to the bottom of the discussion page. Human Potential Movement, Personal development, New Age, 1970s fads, these concepts were all integral to the atmosphere present during the founding of the organization in Erhard Seminars Training. There is no intention of "impugning the integrity of THP", any assumed intention is POV. However, since it can be argued that these categories may no longer presently describe the intent of the organization, I will remove them.Smeelgova 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Redundancy

  • One aspect of the current article that is particularly easy to remedy is the enormous redundancy. While I consider that a litany of every time someone has said something negative to be, basically, irrelevant and misleading, we can certainly agree that there is no reason to include each incident three times. Once an item is referenced with a link, there is no valid reason to repeat it.Jcoonrod 21:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By definition, if you put the same information in two places, that's redundant. My objection to the reduncancy is not just stylistic.Jcoonrod 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, the external links section is not redundant, but simply a different location for the reader to refer to as a reference. The favorable/unfavorable links section is a model used on many other wikipedia articles. The "See Also" section is common on many other articles, and many readers often skip to this section without actually even reading the article. Therefore, this is also not redundant. Smeelgova 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "External Links" section is common practice on Wikipedia. In fact, the external links section often repeats citations made in various parts of a Wikipedia article, in numerous other articles. Take John F. Kennedy, for example. One could argue that each of the external links at the bottom are redundant, for the information is already contained in the article. This is simply another resource for the reader and is appropriate.Smeelgova 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • One of my key objections is your timeline of negativity - something that is not common practice at all and which I find horribly misleading. If, for the truce period, you insist on keeping that, then to avoid quadruple redundancy (timeline / see also / references / external links) you need to give something up. If, for now, you cannot give up the timeline then give up either the references or the external links. I vote for the external links, as they are so incomplete as to also be misleading. Either that or I insert my links to hundreds of positive articles.Jcoonrod 10:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, wikipedia is about good content. So I've taken the liberty of doing a lot of copyediting so that you two can focus on that.

  • I'm sure there are a lot of articles where references and external links are duplicated, but that's (I think) a historical artifact, not a policy. Within the last six months or so, there seems to be a lot more use of references in wikipedia. Older articles with lots of listed external links need to be transitioned over. The fact that there are articles with both isn't justification for the duplication here.
Here's the wikipedia policy:

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online. [4]

  • And I flatly disagree that many readers skip to the "See Also" section without even reading the article. The "See Also" section actually had so many subjects that the relevant ones were being lost ("Africa"???- If that article has more than a sentence about THP, its overemphasizing the organization - THP has a budget of what, $10 million per year?). I'd guess there are still more subjects that should be removed as totally peripheral to THP, but I didn't go through the rest to see, I just removed the obvious. Wikification of words WITHIN the article (like Africa gives the reader a CONTEXT for deciding weither or not to go to another article; putting it in "See Also" loses that context (and, again, obsurces subjects that ARE most relevant. (I can't believe there are really more than a dozen subjects that should be in "See Also") John Broughton 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • John Broughton seems to have a good model, for the most part, that achieves some degree of balance and NPOV. As for the reference to the "timeline of negativity", this is simply the POV of one user and an inadequate outright characterization. The timeline of events dealing with the criticism and suppression of speech in the media by The Hunger Project through intimidation and legal action is extremely hard to follow. A timeline makes this easier for the reader.Smeelgova 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Framing the section on criticism

  • The section currently includes a mix of media and non-media criticism, plus an extra section of criticism just above it (but mislabeled) that seems to belong here.Jcoonrod 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed as to some of the redundancy, and combined the Subsequent Events section with Criticism section. However, the removal virtually all of the external links and references sections is inappropriate. These sections are not redundant, but instead provide the reader with access to further avenues of research.Smeelgova 05:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Except the links you provide (a) are only relevant to the issue of media criticism, not The Hunger Project generally and (b) all those links already exist in that section - so they are completely redundant and repeating them in another section is misleading.Jcoonrod 11:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The added statement about THP complaints is inaccurate, and has been corrected.Jcoonrod 11:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, the external links section is not redundant, but simply a different location for the reader to refer to as a reference. The favorable/unfavorable links section is a model used on many other wikipedia articles. The "See Also" section is common on many other articles, and many readers often skip to this section without actually even reading the article. Therefore, this is also not redundant. Smeelgova 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's keep discussions in the right section - redundancy will coninue above.Jcoonrod 13:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The insertions that THP staff editing of Wikipedia as a criticism is an improper characterization - had there been more willingness to discuss a truce format, there would have been no need for staff participation. In the meanwhile, the full discussion is available here.Jcoonrod 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • THP has never complained about articles describing its association with Werner Erhard or est. Our only complaints are, as stated by us now on the page, have only related to demonstrably false and defamatory statements.Jcoonrod 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Carol Giambalvo requested that her personal essay be removed from the web as no longer representing her views and requested that THP remove its rebuttal, which we did. These are therefore inappropriate to include.Jcoonrod 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The Carol Giambalvo piece is mentioned in numerous other places on the web, and as part of the fair use policy as discussed in quite detail by us above, is available for mention here. The current COO and VP of The Hunger Project has in fact spent a great deal of time editing the wikipedia article for the past almost 3 years now. It seems a most appropriate statement, and not a characterization to state The Hunger Project staff also regularly edits Wikipedia, in an effort to delete negative viewpoints about The Hunger Project. Certainly one could even put a POV slant on this, but the language used is extremely bland.Smeelgova 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • By reverting rather than continuing to edit within your own framework, the previous editor has deleted numerous of my edits without explanation. The only way I now have to recover them is to revert. Please - let us make one edit at a time and comment it and not return to a revert war.Jcoonrod 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Under no circumstance does fair use allow full republication of copyrighted articles on the web.Jcoonrod (See [|10 Big Myths of Copyright Explained] 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair Use Copyright Law has already been discussed at length, please see above. I have NOT "reverted", but rather edited within the framework of the more neutral and balanced John Broughton version.Smeelgova 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if you didn't revert, then you deleted without comment numerous additions and corrections I had made directly into John's version, which is the same thing. But I believe the record shows you reverted to just before my edit. I've stopped changing your insertions without comment and I ask for similar respect. As for Fair Use, you have not provided evidence for your false assertions, you've just kept repeating them.Jcoonrod 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That is simply not the case. There is a detailed discussion of Fair Use above. As to the various edits, the previous version is more balanced and neutral.Smeelgova 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We need to agree not to revert, but to edit. Do you agree or not?Jcoonrod 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The user Jcoonrod has been reverting for the past 3 years. Surely this user of all must see his complaints as hypocrisy. I, on the other hand, have NOT reverted, but simply maintained a neutral approach through collaboration with numerous other independent editors, who are not employees of The Hunger Project.Smeelgova 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Smeelgova, you admitted above going back to a version before my whole series of edits - that, by definition, is a revert. We are hopefully heading into mediation. During this period you and I have struggled to come up with a working framework - not simply revert between them, and I thought we had reached such an agreement with John's format. So - I ask you again - shall we agree to stop reverting during this period or not?Jcoonrod 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is simply silly back and forth banter, and I resent being personally verbally attacked in this manner, instead of politely debating the issues at hand. I have stated previously above, it is the user Jcoonrod who has consistently reverted over the past 3 years, not myself.Smeelgova 01:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not an attack, it is a question of how we should proceed in a civil manner. The issue here is whether, as we go into mediation, we will follow the Wikipedia recommendations and agree to some terms of a truce. My question is, can we agree that during this period we will not revert over each others edits, but rather handle any changes or additions through edits.Jcoonrod 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I regard said personal verbal mentions of my supposed actions above as a personal verbal attack, which is unwarranted. I will state again (from above), Jcoonrod has been in the practice of reverting numerous other editors' additions for the past 3 years, I have only been collaborating with other editors to create a more balanced and neutral representation of this article for the last month.Smeelgova 17:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Balance in the introduction

  • The insertion about criticism in the beginning is imbalanced, so I've added balance.Jcoonrod 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The introduction is balanced. There is only a small mention of criticism, and the reader can then scroll down for more information on both the positive history and criticism.Smeelgova 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • NPOV means presenting two points of view, not just one. The sequence of propositions - it exists and some people don't like it - is not balanced. The sequence - it exists, some people like it, some people don't - is balanced.Jcoonrod 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. However, the statement The Hunger Project has been criticised for its methods and associations, as well as its past links to Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training., is factually accurate and correct, and currently stated in a NPOV manner. There is no innuendo in this statement, and the reader can then see below for more detailed information on criticism.Smeelgova 03:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Balance in the history section

  • Addition to include brief history of The Hunger Project.Jcoonrod 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Completion of list of key participants in the founding of The Hunger Project.Jcoonrod 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Addition to include cited/sourced, factually accurate information relating to The Hunger Project's origins in Erhard Seminars Training/est.Smeelgova 17:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrections in the criticism section

  • The Rick Ross "History" piece is basically not a summary, rather it is an opinion piece in its own right and belongs with the other opinion pieces.Jcoonrod 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Titles should not contain all caps.Jcoonrod 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • AOL never published an article about THP.Jcoonrod
  • Complaints by THP have only been issued in cases where articles are demonstrably false and defamatory. Generally, these complaints have resulted in retractions and apologies.Jcoonrod 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Rick Ross history summary restated to state that he compiled factual data from publicly available media sources, in a legal fashion, on his website. Information regarding AOL restated to be factually correct. These complaints have not always resulted in retractions, this is factually inaccurate.Smeelgova 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the false statement, "The Hunger Project staff also regularly edits Wikipedia, in an effort to delete negative viewpoints about The Hunger Project" as demonstrably false (a) negative viewpoints are clearly up there in abundance, aren't they? (b) the staff of THP are both able and entitled to state their own reasons for editing the page rather than having their motivation divined by THP detractors.Jcoonrod 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed to: The Hunger Project staff also spends time regularly editing Wikipedia. I had not authored the previous version of this statement, merely copied it from an editor's deleted version of the article. The statement is now currently factual and NPOV. As far as negative viewpoints are clearly up there in abundance, aren't they? , this is clearly the previous editor's own POV.Smeelgova 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have deleted above section which had been written by a different editor and copied into the article: The Hunger Project staff also spends time regularly editing Wikipedia. As stated on other pages, I apologize for this action. I have and will continue to focus efforts on citing referenced sources in blockquote citation format.Smeelgova 18:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputes in the financial section

  • Smeelgova has advanced elsewhere and here the unsupported notion that non-profit CEO compensation averages 1.97% of revenue, but there is no evidence to this assertion.Jcoonrod 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Smeelgova has removed the uniformly positive assessments of THP overhead rates by the same watchdog groups she cites elsewhere, I am restoring them.Jcoonrod 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The financial information was indeed factually accurate, based on available information from public databases. However, it will be allowed to be removed without dispute. I must note that I personally resent user Jcoonrod personal attacks against individual users, as opposed to limiting discussion to the issues at hand. I, have tried to relegate my personal discussion to debate of the issues themselves, and not actions of individual users, unless personally verbally attacked by them.Smeelgova 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Charity Navigator rating is made up of two parts - efficiency (based on overhead rates, for which they give 4 stars to THP) and capacity, based on growth rates, for which they only give 3 stars and they average this to an overall rating of 3 stars.Jcoonrod 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cited referenced quote from Charity Navigator added back into the main article, subheading on finance:

Joan Holmes, the project's president, was paid $232,010 in 2004.

The Hunger Project financial statistics from Charity Navigator, 2004. According to Charity Navigator:

Compensation for the CEO of this charity is equal to 2.97% of this organization's total functional expenses.

The Hunger Project, Charity Navigator, CEO Pay FYE 2004, % of Expenses - "Show Me.", http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/6427.htm

Smeelgova 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How much Werner Erhard is too much?

  • This article is becoming absurdly imbalanced with pointless minutia about one man's early influence in the organization, without ever making a point about why this is important or relevant to the reader. There have been many, many influences on THP - both in the early days and in the past 16 years since Mr. Erhard left the board.Jcoonrod 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is finally beginning to represent a balanced view, citing factually correct and accurate sources. There is a dirth of information available in this article and elsewhere on the direct origin relationships that exist between The Hunger Project, and Werner Erhard/Erhard Seminars Training/est. The initial origin factual history of Erhard Seminars Training/est, and Werner Erhard is relevant, accurate, and of great interest to the reader.Smeelgova 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
      • To which readers would that be interesting and why, given that Mr. Erhard has had no influence in the organization during 16 years of rapid change? Why would tiny 30-year-old details of that influence be more interesting than, say, our long relationship with Javier Perez de Cuellar or Queen Noor?Jcoonrod 01:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Lynne Twist was indeed a senior staff member, a wonderful person, and she left staff in 1997. She was never Assistant Executive Director. We've had hundreds of staff over the years and are proud of them all. Is it of interest for some reason to include every one of them on Wikipedia? What is the editor's point?Jcoonrod 01:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • tiny 30-year-old details of that influence, this is clearly the POV of the previous commentator. It is important to note in the Erhard Seminars Training, early connections subheading, the cited, sourced, number of staff members who came over from Erhard Seminars Training/est to come and work professionally for The Hunger Project. Proper chronological formatting has been restored, to correlate with factual information relating to origin.Smeelgova 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no argument that a number of early staff had taken the est training, particularly given the support est provided to help start THP. But still, no statement has ever been made why that is relevant - there are many est graduates in many organizations. I don't think the editor is saying that est is a cult or that there is anything improper with THP having received early support from est so - since the editor has chosen to make no point at all about this information, I will remove it as irrelevant.Jcoonrod 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no argument that a number of early staff had taken the est training, this statement alone is certainly very relevant indeed, to the history of the origins of The Hunger Project and its links with Erhard Seminars Training and Werner Erhard. I don't think the editor is saying that est is a cult or that there is anything improper with THP having received early support from est so - since the editor has chosen to make no point at all about this information I will not make any claim, personal or otherwise, to what I think regarding information, because that would be POV. However, I will continue to cite relevant and factual information from other sources. As this information above is integral and vital to the history of the article, it will remain and be restored as relevant.Smeelgova 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no such thing as editing without a point of view - to be human is to have one and if there is one thing I learned in physics is the only way to be aware of the impact of POV is to be honest about it. For example, the statement that material is "relevant" has an implicit POV. My POV (and I have a very well-informed POV in this matter) is that these details are NOT relevant, are misleading, and certainly should not be taking up so much space in a Wikipedia entry on this charity. As for factual, almost all the references are based on material which is demonstrably false.Jcoonrod 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • All of the information included to date is factual, and sourced from reputable references as described above or in the citations in the article. As to relevance, the formative history and origins of the organization as related to Werner Erhard and Erhard Seminars Training is most certainly relevant. Yes, this is my POV and that of several other editors judging from the edit history over the past 3 years. Historically this article did not have enough information on these topics. It is now almost up to a point where it is becoming adequate.Smeelgova 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, as we move towards mediation, it might be useful to be able to put into words what constitutes adequate. We now have pages of references to anti-cult activist websites that make the point that Werner Erhard was one of the founders and ealy board members of The Hunger Project, his est organization and the est foundation provided startup support to The Hunger Project, and that people who considered est to be controversial were initially very suspicious about The Hunger Project and its intentions. Does that sum it up? If this a fair summary of this POV?

Jcoonrod 12:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Added reputable, sourced citation/quotes from :


Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, the Center for Investigative Reporting. Now this article is beginning to show a more comprehensive version of The Hunger Project's controversial history.
Smeelgova 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From user page Danny

A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement that has been placed on this entry. Anything you can do to expedite its handling will be much appreciated.Jcoonrod

  • RE: above: A few hours ago I sent a message to the info team about a libelous statement ... This is clearly the POV of the previous user. All statements have been properly sourced and referenced with endnotes, from a source (NOT Mother Jones) that duly published said statements in reference to a different article. A NOTE was placed before the reference to alert the reader to its integrity:

    NOTE: Sourced quote from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story., David Weir (journalist), Dan Noyes, the Center for Investigative Reporting

    . The Center for Investigative Reporting is a reputable source. There have been no lawsuits against above source for statements within its work, which comment on other sources that were reprinted properly with permission.Smeelgova 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reverted to prior version by user User:Danny , pending mediation.Smeelgova 00:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Giambalvo article

On 16 June 2006 at 15:15 (UTC) User:Jcoonrod wrote in the Hunger Project Talk Page: "Carol Giambalvo requested that her personal essay be removed from the web as no longer representing her views ..."

This summary of events appears at variance with the way in which Carol Giambalvo continues to make her article publicly available via http://hometown.aol.com/carol2180/author.htm, stating: '"The Hunger Project: Inside Out" (Spiritual Counterfeits Project Journal, Volume 8:1, 1988) and revised, unpublished document. Note: the material published on this site has been removed due to a complaint lodged by The Hunger Project to AOL. Copies of this paper are available by direct request... '

-- Pedant17 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for bringing it to my attention. She had removed it from her main page but apparently had forgotten she had the same thing on this page. I'll let her know. She does not email out the document anymore.--Jcoonrod 01:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Hunger Project Witness

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive any technical errors.

The Hunger Project has always been controversial. Much of this discussion seems to revolve around removing or minimizing this controversy. To do so would be misleading.

Perhaps I can provide some information as a witness who was involved in both est and The Hunger Project in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While the two organizations were legally separate, in practice, they were so intertwined it was difficult to separate them. Not only were many/most of THP staff est graduates, so were most of the multitude of THP volunteers. Not only was Werner Erhard a founder of THP, he wrote the source document, which was based upon the est ideology. THP was formed by and embodied entirely Werner Erhard's and est's principles and abstractions. est offered, at one time, a "Hunger Project" graduate seminar. The source document was sold at est events, and often referenced in est programs. There certainly was est recruitment associated with THP. I never heard that THP authorized it, but I also never heard that they discouraged it.

I'd encourage THP to provide a copy of Werner Erhard's Hunger Project source document to Wikipedia. "A Transformation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come". The Hunger Project, 1977. Written by Werner Erhard.

I didn't notice any mention in the article of THP's original mission, which was to end hunger on the planet within 20 years, a goal which was not met.

Hope this helps.

--Kat'n'Yarn 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Kat'n'Yarn

Earl Babbie "You Can Make A Difference"

The text of Earl Babbie's book "You Can Make A Difference" is online at his web site and says some interesting things about the early days of THP. I notice it's not mentioned in the article.

http://www1.chapman.edu/wilkinson/socsci/sociology/Faculty/Babbie/e211/BiblioFiles/YCMAD/YCMAD.html

Phr (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Objectives

In each region of the developing world, (HTML COMMENT: exception: the Pacific) The Hunger Project's programs apply principles of self-reliance, gender-equality, local leadership and local democracy to address hunger and poverty.

I removed this section because it sounds promotional, rather than encyclopedic, and because there appear to be doubts about its accuracy. The next section describes the actual projects; if there are any regions of the world missing, they should just be added there. -- Beland 23:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger

This arbitration case is close and the decision has been published at the above link.

  • In the absence of challenge, non-controversial material obtained from the The Hunger Project website, http://www.thp.org/ may be included in the article. Such material may be added by Jcoonrod or any other user associated with The Hunger Project. If such material is contested, in good faith, by any other user the material shall be removed unless a reliable published source is available for the information. In this context, a good faith challenge requires some reason to doubt the validity of the information.
  • Critical information may be included in the article only if it is supported by verifiable information which has been published by a reputable source. Material lacking an adequate reference may be removed by anyone without discussion. Such removal is an exception to the three revert rule. Critical information shall be attributed to its source and be placed in context, in other words, practices which are alleged to have occurred during the organizational or formative stages of the Project shall be identified as such.
  • It is presumed that, using the suggested guidelines we have made, Jcoonrod, Smeelgova, and other involved editors can edit responsibly without sanctions which restrict their editing of this or related articles.
  • The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction of this dispute and may, on its own motion, or on the motion of a concerned user, reopen it for further consideration.


For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-arbitration cleanup

Per the ruling, I have removed some of the negative comments that lack verifiable references. Jcoonrod 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at your edit, it appears you have removed some comments which do reference verifiable cited published sources. Would you be so kind as to discuss what you've removed point by point? Kat'n'Yarn 01:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted. --Descendall 05:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I standardized many of the references per Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. Will finish later. Kat'n'Yarn 08:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Still working on it. Added Giambalvo article. Kat'n'Yarn 01:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Added four more articles. Still tracking down all the details. All these references are "findable" at this time. Nonetheless, I will find information necessary to make biblio complete, where necessary. Kat'n'Yarn 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of programs section

I tagged this as sounding like an advertisement, because it currently reads like something from a promotional mailing. The same information could be presenting in a neutral way be attributing the various claims to third parties, rather than making it sound like Wikipedia itself believes that the world ignored the famine in Cambodia, etc. This would be easier to do if the section referenced the sources for the claims it makes. -- Beland 23:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the VP/COO of The Hunger Project has removed the "advertisement" tag from this section, without actually changing any of the content. I stand by my original assertion that this section is not neutral. If THP would like this material to be retained, it would be helpful to point us at sources for these claims; probably it will be easier for disinterested parties to find neutral wording and edit for content neutrality and notability. -- Beland 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Verifiable cited sources and a rewording/editing of these sections would go a long way towards removing the obvious "advertisement" bias from the aforementioned sections, if the material is to be retained.Smeelgova 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I'm to blame. I moved the "advertisement" tag to the beginning of the article, because the entire early section reads like a promotional brochure. It would be preferable to see cited information on what concrete accomplishments THP has made, rather than unsubstantiated claims about what it's doing. I also added "fact" tags. Kat'n'Yarn 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over arbitration decision and Wikipedia guidelines

I don’t know if anyone else was confused by the Arbitration decision, and its inconsistency with Wilipedia policies and guidelines, but I thought we should discuss it. The issue of allowing unsourced material from The Hunger Project’s website wasn’t especially presented or discussed during the arbitration, and I hope the arbitrators didn’t realize the result of their decision. This is what is confusing to me:

Remedies: Material from The Hunger Project itself
1) In the absence of challenge, non-controversial material obtained from the The Hunger Project website, http://www.thp.org/ may be included in the article. Such material may be added by Jcoonrod or any other user associated with The Hunger Project. If such material is contested, in good faith, by any other user the material shall be removed unless a reliable published source is available for the information. In this context, a good faith challenge requires some reason to doubt the validity of the information.

However, in a previous section, they also said:

Principles: Adequate references
1) References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article.

Below are some Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and proposed guidelines relevant to the issue:

Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)
This policy in a nutshell:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline)
Company and organization websites
Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one.
Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises (proposed policy)
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced positive material
Editors should remove any positive material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from articles concerning ongoing enterprises. Wikipedia does not accept advertising, or articles which are in effect advertising. See WP:ADS. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Using the enterprise as a source
In some cases an agent or employee of the enterprise may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, an enterprise website or blog, or a published history of the enterprise. When information supplied by the enterprise conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed. When information supplied by the enterprise conflicts with properly sourced statements from reliable sources, both should be noted. See WP:NPOV.
Information supplied by the enterprise may be added to the article if:
• It is relevant to the enterprise's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.
Notable enterprises
In the case of significant enterprises, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia articles should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (official policy)
Using the subject as a source:
Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
• It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
• It is relevant to the person's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (official policy)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability.
3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.
Wikipedia:Autobiography (guideline)
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [1]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing.

It certainly seems like the arbitrators decided to apply a double standard. Negative information must be appropriately-sourced, but positive information doesn’t have to be. I think we have no choice but to continue to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, the arbitration decision notwithstanding. Otherwise, we have no guidelines. If need be, we can ask that arbitration be re-opened to clarify the matter.

BTW, I can’t stand the revisionist history in the article. There are literally thousands of people who were there and who know better, and there was widespread media coverage. Revisionist history doesn’t bode well for Wikipedia’s credibility. I’m working on a well-documented account of the early years (1977-1990) of The Hunger Project.

FYI, someone said they thought THP severed its ties to est shortly after the Mother Jones article was published. That isn’t true. THP probably got its own office about then, but est and the est graduate body continued, overwhelmingly, to be THP’s base of support. I can understand THP wanting to distance itself from Werner Erhard after he became a PR liability, but they’ve not only erased (or minimized) Erhard from history, history itself, but also the contributions of many est footsoldiers. Kat'n'Yarn 04:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrative, fundraising expenses section

I began this to put what I guess are Jcoonrod's references into standard format (just call me the maid), but didn't get too far. The CFC and CVC links are just a list of every charity that federal or Virginia employees can give to, and don't give much information when used as a reference source. The Charity Navigator link is a good source, and I'll standardize it. However, this section needs to be rewritten to give more meaningful information, cited and sourced. In the process, I found that Give.org/BBB notes THP does not meet one of its standards, but does meet the other 18 effective ones. This isn't alarming, but the statement "The Hunger Project meets all financial standards of governmental and nongovernmental agencies" should be removed from the section, and the Give.org information noted. As long as there's nothing notable about it, I don't understand any reason to include the CEO's salary in the section. Kat'n'Yarn 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what the heck does THP do?

Charity Navigator suggest 6 questions to ask a charity. Question #1 is "Can the charity clearly communicate who they are and what they do?" I've looked at the Wiki article, THP's website, the reports made, and I can't figure it out.

Okay, THP used to be almost entirely "education and advocacy", and that now accounts for about 25% of it's program expenses.

THP used to be committed to not giving food to starving people, and there's a statement in the report they gave Guidestar [5] that says THP does not give handouts, so that seems to be the same. (Guidestar requires registration, so I can't give a direct link to THP's page.)

I can tell that THP now does some kind of indigenous grassroots programs, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what they are. I keep running into vague terms like "empowering", "training" (surely they don't mean ... ?), and "planning". What, exactly, clearly, without ambiguity, does THP do that leads or will lead to less hunger? Kat'n'Yarn 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I can give case examples.

Mostly they fall into the following sequence

  1. Run a training workshop (THP calls them various things in various countries)
  2. Pick people who show talent to be leaders (THP calls them "animators")
  3. Give money to act as seed funding for a project. (Some information indicates it may sometimes be a loan)
  4. Provide support (THP local administrators) to the "animators"

Examples.

  • Africa - THP "builds" epicenters, these house, medical unit, micro bank, mini-school, meeting rooms, food storage, etc
  • Bangladesh - THP "runs" workshops on womens rights
  • Africa - THP "runs" AIDS awareness
  • Mexico - ?? unclear
  • Bolivia - Supports a radio station that broadcasts education info
  • Peru - ?? unclear
  • India - similar to Bangladesh

Areas that are not clear: THP in a lot of thier documents discuss political activation. It is never clear how this is arranged or funded.

  • 124.254.88.144 06:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To User 124.254.88.144 - All very interesting information you provided above, but unless you can cite sources or referenced documentation for this, we most likely can not put it into the article and hope to maintain any sense of reputability. So, any sources? Yours, Smeelgova 07:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC).
  • I was not attempting to cite examples. I read through the information I could find on THP and condensed it. I was answering Kat'n'Yarn's question and hopefully giving him a direction to look 124.254.88.144 08:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, well at any rate, any citations/sources you could provide myself or any other editor would be most helpful and appreciated. Yours, Smeelgova 08:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

History: "The early years (1977-1990)"

I have a draft section headed "The early years (1977-1990)" on my sandbox, well-documented from published sources, and I think it places events in historic context. In order to keep it concise, it covers only the highlights. Some areas of controversy have been left out, especially allegations of money-laundering (which I have serious doubts about myself) and of THP-related est recruitment (which did occur, but I think it was a matter of naivete). I would have liked to include more information favorable to THP, but I looked at the history section of THP's website and didn't find anything else I'd call a highlight. It's difficult to find favorable published information during this period, other than articles which specifically dealt with THP's celebrities and awards.

The article would have to be adapted to include this section; redundant information would have to be removed. I suggest removing the "Timeline of criticism" section and moving the references to a "Further reading" section at the bottom of the article. The more recent criticism that John Coonrod has attempted to remove unfavorable information from the internet would have to be dealt with elsewhere in the article.

Please don't edit my sandbox. Discuss it here. Calmly.  :) Kat'n'Yarn 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Kat'n'Yarn after reading your article I feel the need to clap. Excellent read, it feels right. I personally have a question about the "Hunger feeds it's self" reference and the note about Oxfam Canada. This is mainly due to me, after a lot of checking, being unable to source the artical "Hunger feeds it's self" and the only place that the note about Oxfam Canada not endorsing THP is on a site that does not directly link the note with the artical. It's actually a new sentance. I also note that Oxfam and THP have notes on thier websites about the work they are doing togeather now. Several african newspapers also refer to Oxfam and THP in the same articals. If you can find any reliable reference I would keep it, as I do think it's historic value is required, however I would put a caviate, that Oxfam and THP are working togeather now.
  • Mark1800 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Added references to THP sites in Financial section

I did this is request to the {fact} request. All websites include an ability to track why they are listed as a charity in the country of origin. Those countries not done are due to me being lasy, someone else can find them 124.254.97.166 08:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunger Project feeds itself

Can anybody point to anywhere I can find any reference to this artical. The only places this seems to appear are here on wiki and on the RRI website (even then it states something different to what is listed here) In 1985 the McGill daily was a student newspaper with what appears to be a small distribution. IMHO: If we are going to include student newspapers here we clutching at straws. Mark1800 11:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See McGill Daily:

The paper was first published in 1911. As such, it is one of North America's oldest student papers. Along with The McGill Tribune, it is one of the most widely read student publications at McGill. In fact, it currently claims to be the second-largest student newspaper in Canada, with a weekly circulation of 28,000 as of 2005 (together with its francophone sister version, Le Délit français).

Also see section on Daily's past contributors who have gone on to fame. This is indeed a reputable source, and properly cited at that. Yours, Smeelgova 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

  • All of what you have said is true NOW. At the time 1985, 20 years ago, my research indicates the readership was much smaller. What I was asking is where is the source document. The McGill website doesn't have it. It's not to be found anywhere else on the net. All that we have is a single quote. We have no idea as to the context in which it was written. Also the only other reference (secondary source) to the document is different from what is presented here. Are we in the business of making stuff up? No, we are not. It does not meet the Wikipedia:Reliable sources standard. No Primary source, secondary source is different to what is presented here.
  • Mark1800 07:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is cited in proper format, and yes, is reputable NOW. Should we simply cease citing sources if we can't find the material readily available on the internet? This would negate most sources on all of Wikipedia. Smeelgova 08:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
    • I read the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger and it is clear from the Final decision that the McGill artical should be removed. It doesn't meet Adequate references, nor Articles regarding ongoing enterprises, nor Critical references sections. The section Requesting removal of poorly sourced negative information is clear about what to do in this case. Section Critical references seems to refer to this specific example.
    • Mark1800 13:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger :

    References must be verifiable information from a reputable published source. That means that they must be identified well enough that a reader can potentially find them and locate the material in the reference which supports the information in the article.

    As the readership of the McGill Daily had a weekly circulation of 28,000 as of 2005 this should satify this burden quite adequately. Smeelgova 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Please place comments on WP:AN/3RR about The_Hunger_Project#Public_criticism here

Interestingly User:Smeelgova has placed a counter claim on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I am unclear if my initial edit counts. Anyone know? Mark1800 06:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

weblinks that have ref tag to themselves

On this page we have over 20 weblinks that have a ref tag at the end that just link to the same weblink. I have removed the ref tag from the end. It's unnessasary.

I've cleaned this up to some extent with cite.php. If you're going to remove anything, I would suggest that you remove the weblinks but keep the citations. Weblinks are dynamic; they go dead all the time, and then we lose the full set of bibliographical information. As long as things are actually cited, it we'll always have it no matter what. --Descendall 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.