Talk:The Hunger Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] This reads like an advert with a bunch of thp.com self-links
And as such, I tagged it for deletion as an advertisement and spam. I tried to tag a specific section that had no citations, but now has TWO in the last few hours, both self-reffing thp.com links as citations.
Is this ever going to end? Why was my tag for deletion undone by an admin? It's an advert...the majority of the links are from thp themselves.
How is this objective OR neutral? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would not put speedy tags on the article, that is probably inappropriate. Rather, remove the sections of text that you feel are either poorly sourced, or sourced from locations that make those sections of the article read like spam advertising. Then, you and others can rewrite those sections with information from secondary sources, instead of the company's website and information directly from its officers editing Wikipedia, as you have rightfully complained about. Just some suggestions. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Edits by Thpcomm
I work in the communications department of The Hunger Project and am a new wikipedia user. I believe strongly in the NPOV policy and look forward to working with other editors to ensure this article is accurate, well-sourced, NPOV and consistent with the full range of wikipedia standards.
My first edits have been to update the infotable with the current list of directors and officers, using the correct non-profit organization template. Thpcomm (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a COI issue. --Pax Arcane 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I intend to work consistent with all the Wikipedia standards to help this and any other article I edit become accurate, well-sourced and NPOV. As you'll see in the arbitration decision covering this page found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger/Proposed_decision, editors associated with The Hunger Project are explicitly permitted to edit this page. I look forward to working with other editors to make this page the best it can be.Thpcomm (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the primary activities section to focus on factual statements backed by verifiable sources. I have removed the final paragraph completely based on WP:NOR and Verifiability policies as these statements appear to be unsourced opinions. In the Financial Accountability section, I removed the word “claims” to describe an undisputed factual matter (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_Avoid).
Based on these edits, I have also removed the advertising tag, which I believe is not applicable at this point.Thpcomm (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Looks good so far. It's refreshing to see independently sourced info on this article and an
editor willing to dig in and do the work instead of self referring links.
-
- I only agreed that it looked good until I found out it just referred to different THP weebsites/blogs insterad of anything substantive. LOOKED good, but didn't work out.--Pax Arcane 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only edit I have issue with is removal of the word 'claims' in the financial accountability section as the financial info has not been independently verified and still contains self referring links. --Pax Arcane 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your note. The audited statement is independently published by an external auditor (McGladrey & Pullen) and is just posted on the website. Could you look at the link and let me know if you still have a concern?Crystal08 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but due to COI on your part, I'd need the statement from a secondary source. --Pax Arcane 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. The audited statement is independently published by an external auditor (McGladrey & Pullen) and is just posted on the website. Could you look at the link and let me know if you still have a concern?Crystal08 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revert to previous edits by Thpcomm
I am the user that was formerly known as Thpcomm, and have changed my username to abide by Wikipedia standards (no company names). I am an individual that works in Communications at The Hunger Project (not a role account), and believe strongly in Wikipedia's NPOV and Verifiability policies and will do my best to ensure that my edits meet those standards.
Well sourced edits to three sections of this article have been reverted without any substantive discussion. In the case of the infotable, the reversions replaced accurate verifiable information and an appropriate template with outdated unsourced information and an inapplicable template. The reason cited, "revert COI edits," is not as I understand it a legitimate reason for reversion. Consistent with Wikipedia policies, under the arbitration decision covering this page (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger/Proposed_decision), editors associated with The Hunger Project are explicitly permitted to edit this page.
I am therefore reverting back to the page with my edits and if any edits I have made do not comply with NPOV or other policies, or the article can otherwise be made better, I look forward to reading and discussing other users' edits. I have stated my affiliation to be open and transparent and am doing my best in good faith to make the article NPOV and not promotional, so I would appreciate if my edits were not reverted based solely on the fact that I edited the article. Please post on the talk page any problems with specific edits.
Crystal08 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you have an acknowledged financial conflict of interest on this article's subject matter - it would be best if you do not edit this article directly, but instead post requested changes for discussion here on the talk page. Let's start with this: Please take a moment to read over WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. After that, please let us know here on the talkpage if you have any citations to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to back up potential changes to be made to this article. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My edits appear to have been reverted without examining whether they are good edits that add reliable secondary sources. Please note that another editor of this page and an administrator have commented positively about these changes, which are non-controversial and have secondary sources.
Reverting edits solely because of COI appears inconsistent with WP policies and the arbitration, which expressly allows editing by people associated with The Hunger Project. The COI guideline states that it “does not require editors with a COI to avoid editing altogether. An editor with a disclosed COI is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page and/or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other WP policies and guidelines.”
The edits I have made so far are non-controversial and well sourced. If you disagree about any of the edits, please examine them or edit them and let us discuss them here rather than simply reverting the article.
I also believe that other sections of the article are not well-sourced and are POV. I expect to post any proposed substantial edits to those sections first to the talk page in the hopes of developing a consensus so that we can get an article that is consistent with WP standards.
I have also posted a request on WP:COIN for editing assistance and look forward to working with other editors consistent with WP policies.Crystal08 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have evaluated your edits, and please, if you are affilated with the organization to please stop editing this article due to conflict of interest. And, as far as I know, you are adding sources from your website and not from third-party sources. I've heard of similar projects, but none of them have ever tried to promote the organization via Wikipedia. BoL (Talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Brief initial comment via WP:COIN. I agree that the Thpcomm/Crystal08 edits are unsatistfactory per WP:COI; whatever arbitration says, it's bound to raise suspicion if editors associated with an organisation delete sections relating to criticism.
- However, I think that the consensus version of the article also needs work for neutrality via rephrasing weasel words. The phraseology "claims" is prejudicial: "states" or "according to..." would be better. Also the section
- Observers, even while sympathetic to the stated goals of the Hunger Project, have noted an emphasis on semi-mystical allegations that world hunger will disappear through adoption of attitudes among us, with little hard evidence to support this claim. It has been remarked, too, that while the claimed activities abroad, as listed above, are admirable, the Hunger Project to win public confidence needs to produce more evidence, from impartial observers, that these benefits have actually been achieved.
- needs tying to specific quotes and sources. "Observers ... have noted ... It has been remarked". Who noted and remarked, and where? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In my proposed edits, I did my best to improve, in my opinion, a poorly sourced POV article by using neutral language and secondary sources where ever possible. Rather than editing the article at this point, I want to further explain my suggested edits and hope that other users will engage with them.
I added these references to the first two sections.
Future, NEED Magazine, Issue 2, 2007.
Ghanaian Villagers Making Their Way Out of Poverty, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, July 25, 2005.
The Earth Times", by Duane A. Gallop, Posted October 23, 2002.
Hunger Project's animators to create bright future for nation" The New Nation, December 23, 2005.
Girls' Hunger Fought with Cooking Oil" Anna Grossman, November, 24, 2005.
PIB Official Bags Sarojini Naidu Prize" Press Information Bureau, Government of India, September 15, 2005.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements", The Hunger Project 2006 Annual Report, page 25.
Prior to these edits, the only sources (other than for the first sentence) cited for the introductory and primary activities sections were from The Hunger Project's website. Another editor of this article commented about these edits "Looks good so far. It's refreshing to see independently sourced info on this article and an editor willing to dig in and do the work instead of self referring links." I also deleted completely unsourced material. Yet, the edits were reverted to the prior version solely because of the COI issue.
-
- I only agreed that it looked good until I found out it just referred to different THP weebsites/blogs insterad of anything substantive. LOOKED good, but didn't work out.--Pax Arcane 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The infotable was created using the incorrect template applicable to for-profit businesses and has inaccurate headings such as "Operating Income," an unsourced inaccurate number of employees and does not even have the correct president of the organization. I used the non-profit form, alphabetized names and removed the unsourced or irrelevant entry. This too was reverted in whole.
In the financial accountability section, I removed the word claim per WP:Words to Avoid on a sentence that is a fact not in controversy and I added the clause that that “Independent Charities of America gives it its Seal of Excellence (awarded to less than one percent of charities operating in the US)” noting the source Independent Charities of America.
In reference to BOL's comment: "And, as far as I know, you are adding sources from your website and not from third party sources," The sources that I have used are secondary and are all linked to pieces you can find on the web. Please refer above, dig in and look at them.
I would appreciate if other editors would read the above references, decide whether they are good sources, then discuss on the talk page or make relevant edits on the main article. Please do not simply ignore my good faith contributions or assume that I am trying to promote the organization rather than working to get a well-sourced NPOV article.
Crystal08 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH PAID COI EDITORS. PEDDLE YOUR WARES IN THE PR SECTOR. --Pax Arcane 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please be reminded to be polite and welcoming, assume good faith, and make no personal attacks.
-
- The references listed above (other than The Hunger Project Annual Report Financial Statements for a fact not in dispute) are to third party sources and not THP websites/blogs as you state in the comment you’ve embedded in my previous post.
-
- Per WP:Etiquette, please do not interweave your comments into the middle of my posts, but leave them at the bottom of the page. I would appreciate your moving the one you just made to that location.Crystal08 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I responded in all caps. Sorry. But that was pretty diplomatic, as much as you'll get from ex-press. I used to do a job like yours. Your first smattering of edits were as I said, just re-directs. I didn't catch it as the appearance was different. Concerning the edits above, I have no comments. I just don't respond to PR agents, no offense. Good luck. --Pax Arcane 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is appropriate for Crystal08 (talk · contribs), as a public relations person for the company which this article is about, to post potential secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources here to the talk page for consideration. Looking at the above sources, some seem appropriate, and some do not. If I get a chance I'll work some of them into the article, and comment on those that aren't appropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I responded in all caps. Sorry. But that was pretty diplomatic, as much as you'll get from ex-press. I used to do a job like yours. Your first smattering of edits were as I said, just re-directs. I didn't catch it as the appearance was different. Concerning the edits above, I have no comments. I just don't respond to PR agents, no offense. Good luck. --Pax Arcane 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:Etiquette, please do not interweave your comments into the middle of my posts, but leave them at the bottom of the page. I would appreciate your moving the one you just made to that location.Crystal08 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Break 1
-
-
-
-
-
- That is still, technically, Conflict of Interest because you are communicating with the general public on the article itself. BoL (Talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it is still PR. Technically, the best PR denies that it is PR. But, see WP:DUCK. Quack quack! --Pax Arcane 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is still, technically, Conflict of Interest because you are communicating with the general public on the article itself. BoL (Talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Request for edits and editors
 |
It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below doesn't want to make because of a conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. To the user using this template: please explain your conflict of interest in detail below. Please disable this template by changing it to an un-transcluded when the request is handled. |
I am an individual that works in Communications at The Hunger Project, and believe strongly in WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article on The Hunger Project as it currently exists is, in my opinion, poorly sourced, POV, and in some cases, flat out inaccurate. Although this page has been subject to an arbitration (WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger) that permits me to edit directly, I am hoping that an experienced, neutral editor will engage with the article and these suggested edits and help make the article accurate, well-sourced and NPOV. I also previously put a request for editing help on WP:COIN.
I am posting below what I believe to be non-controversial suggested edits to the infotable and introductory sections of the article, as well as a summary of the key reasons for the changes.
The Hunger Project (THP) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the state of California (Reference: Global Hunger Project. Give.org/BBB. February 2006. Retrieved March 10, 2008). The Hunger Project's stated purpose is to empower women and men in the developing world to achieve lasting progress in health, education, nutrition and family income (Reference: BBB: Global Hunger Project. Give.org/BBB. February 2006. Retrieved March 10, 2008). In thirteen countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the organization implements programs designed to achieve this purpose (Reference: InterAction). The Hunger Project has made the empowerment of women its highest priority (Reference: The Hunger Project, American Jewish World Service recognized for promoting gender equity, Monday Developments, InterAction, May 20, 2001).
| The Hunger Project | |
 |
|
| Founder(s) | John Denver, Werner Erhard, Robert W. Fuller |
|---|---|
| Type | 501(c)(3) |
| Founded | 1977 |
| Key people | OFFICERS Jill Lester, President, CEO |
| Area served | South Asia, Africa, Latin America |
| Focus | Development |
| Revenue | USD 13,602,409 (2006) |
| Website | www.thp.org |
Primary activities
The Hunger Project's principal activities in each region include:
Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda)
- The "epicenter strategy," which mobilizes communities surrounding epicenters throughout Africa to meet basic needs. (References: Future, NEED Magazine, Issue 2, 2007 and Ghanaian Villagers Making Their Way Out of Poverty, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, July 25, 2005). The epicenter strategy includes a microfinance program, which creates banks that are exclusively owned and operated by women to improve their farms (the African Woman Food Farmer Initiative) (Reference: UN Association of the USA) and HIV/AIDS, education/literacy and food security components (Reference: Future,NEED Magazine, Issue 2, 2007).
- The Africa Prize for Leadership for the Sustainable End of Hunger, which has been awarded since 1987 (Reference: The Earth Times, by Duane A. Gallop, Posted October 23, 2002).
South Asia (Bangladesh, India)
- Training of thousands of animators working for a hunger-free Bangladesh. (Reference: Hunger Project's animators to create bright future for nation" The New Nation, December 23, 2005).
- National Girl Child Day in Bangladesh aimed to change how society views its girls (Reference: Girls' Hunger Fought with Cooking Oil, Anna Grossman, November, 24, 2005).
- Building capacity of elected women leaders in India through workshops, skills training and alliance building (Reference: Girls' Hunger Fought with Cooking Oil, Anna Grossman, November, 24, 2005).
- Sarojini Naidu Prize for Best Reporting on Women and Panchayati Raj delivered annually to three print journalists for outstanding reporting (Reference: PIB Official Bags Sarojini Naidu Prize, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, September 15, 2005).
Latin America (Bolivia, Mexico, Peru)
- The Hunger Project works primarily with indigenous populations in Latin America, directly in Mexico and through partner organizations, ACLO [[1]] in Bolivia, and Chirapaq [[2]] in Peru (Reference: [Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, The Hunger Project 2006 Annual Report, page 25).
Financial and accountability reports The Hunger Project raises funds, via contributions, in the following countries Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States (Reference: [3]). According to its online report retrieved February 2007, Charity Navigator reports that The Hunger Project's program costs in FY2005 were 80.2% of expenses, and administrative and fundraising costs were 19.8%. (Reference: Charity Navigator). Give.org/BBB reports that as of December 2006, the Project's program expenses were 77% of total, and administrative and fundraising costs 23% and meets all of its standards. Charity Navigator gives The Hunger Project four out of four stars, the American Institute of Philanthropy gives it an A- rating (Reference: Top Rated Charities, American Institute of Philanthropy. Retrieved September 17, 2006) and the Independent Charities of America gives it its Seal of Excellence (awarded to less than one percent of charities operating in the US) (Reference: [http: http://www.independentcharities.org/], Independent Charities of America).
The Hunger Project met the standards to be listed on the 2004 Combined Federal Campaign National List (Reference: 2004 Combined Federal Campaign National List, (Word document, see "Global Hunger Project", item #1436). U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved September 16, 2006) and the Commonwealth of Virginia 2005 Charity Application. (Reference: CVC 2005 Charity Application Global Hunger Project, Commonwealth of Virginia Campaign. Retrieved September 17, 2006).
Summary of reasons for changes
In my proposed edits, I did my best to improve, in my opinion, a poorly sourced POV article by using neutral language and secondary sources where ever possible. I edited the introductory and primary activities sections to use factual statements backed by secondary sources, where available. Prior to these edits, the only source (other than for the first sentence) cited for these sections was The Hunger Project's website.
The infotable was created using the incorrect template applicable to for-profit businesses and has inaccurate headings such as "Operating Income," an unsourced inaccurate number of employees and does not even have the correct president of the organization. I used the non-profit form, alphabetized names and removed the unsourced or irrelevant entry.
In the financial accountability section, I removed the word claim per WP:Words to Avoid on a sentence that is a fact not in controversy and I added the clause that that “Independent Charities of America gives it its Seal of Excellence (awarded to less than one percent of charities operating in the US)” noting the source Independent Charities of America.
If these edits are made, I also suggest removing the advertising tag, which I believe is not applicable at this point.
I also believe that other sections of the article are not well-sourced and are POV. I expect to post any proposed substantial edits to those sections to the talk page in the hopes of developing a consensus so that we can get an article that is consistent with WP standards. Crystal08 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from editors, involved or uninvolved
- Support - very nice edit, well done. Follows wiki guidelines as reinforced in the RfA decision and comment. I see no issues with this edit and support timely realization. Ratagonia (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - If we are going to rework the lead, and the article itself (and the entire article could use some reworking) I'd rather see us move away from any reliance on primary sources. Also, we should focus on only utilizing secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, and not use press releases and other forms of dubious sourcing. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting viewpoint, but articles on living corporations tend to rely largely on primary sources. What secondary sources are likely to be available? There tend to be two types: A: lauditory, for instance a company profile in a business magazine, which regurgitates the primary sources (which is kind of 'fake' secondary); and criticism, which tends to not have any additional facts, but feel free to spew venom upon the subject - again kind of a 'fake' secondary. A quick review of the criticism section of THP shows most of the 'secondary' sources fit this latter category - and mostly are not even close to qualifying as a WP:RS, and should probably be deleted. Do you have any specific comments to make on the content of the proposed new edit? Ratagonia (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm not down with PR work on wiki point-blank, and I agree with Cirt's comments about sources. Crystal08's presence in this article is as disturbing as what's happened resently in wikipedia. Vehemently opposed to press releases as PR that made its way into "news." The edits are dubious and frankly insulting. I'm not being paid to edit this article, either. --Pax Arcane 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go back and read the arbitration decision. Clearly states that while 'auto-biography' is generally discouraged, editors who work for the company that follow wikipedia guidelines are acceptable. Perhaps, Pax, you are having trouble assuming good faith. What do you mean by 'what's happened resently in wikipedia'? Also, would you care to criticize the content, rather than the author? Seems like this would be a part of AGF, something about No Personal Attacks. Ratagonia (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rat, your arguments are not logical even if they do serve your agenda. It's a nice smokescreen, but it sounds similar to Forum leaders asking you to give up your crititical thinking. Disarming, but noneless disturbing. I have no time for it, though...and I doubt the editors do as well. Jimbo Wales has said consistently he is against paid wikipedia editors, people paid to edit wikipedia. I agree. --Pax Arcane 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You know not my agenda, Pax Arcane, my history, nor much of my POV - all of which are largely irrelevant. Perhaps you would like to respond to my arguments, rather than launch a personal attack. User Crystal08 is making a good faith effort to abide by what has been requested, and WE have a good faith obligation to consider the suggested edits as wikipedians. Please re-read WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger. While YOUR policy may be to NOT ALLOW PR work on the Wiki, that is not the Wikipedia's policy. The boundaries of this type of edit is clarified in the Rfa, and it makes for good reading. I suggest that WE ALL abide by Wikipedia policy. Incidentally, the name is Ratagonia, it does not shorten to Rat. (and I added an asterix to your response, to extend the indentation for clarity). Ratagonia (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ratagonia, I was tired of your baseless accusations a long time ago. I'm asking you to politely stop and please stop this passive-aggressive, condescending tone. This conversation is over. --Pax Arcane 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- You know not my agenda, Pax Arcane, my history, nor much of my POV - all of which are largely irrelevant. Perhaps you would like to respond to my arguments, rather than launch a personal attack. User Crystal08 is making a good faith effort to abide by what has been requested, and WE have a good faith obligation to consider the suggested edits as wikipedians. Please re-read WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger. While YOUR policy may be to NOT ALLOW PR work on the Wiki, that is not the Wikipedia's policy. The boundaries of this type of edit is clarified in the Rfa, and it makes for good reading. I suggest that WE ALL abide by Wikipedia policy. Incidentally, the name is Ratagonia, it does not shorten to Rat. (and I added an asterix to your response, to extend the indentation for clarity). Ratagonia (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rat, your arguments are not logical even if they do serve your agenda. It's a nice smokescreen, but it sounds similar to Forum leaders asking you to give up your crititical thinking. Disarming, but noneless disturbing. I have no time for it, though...and I doubt the editors do as well. Jimbo Wales has said consistently he is against paid wikipedia editors, people paid to edit wikipedia. I agree. --Pax Arcane 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should go back and read the arbitration decision. Clearly states that while 'auto-biography' is generally discouraged, editors who work for the company that follow wikipedia guidelines are acceptable. Perhaps, Pax, you are having trouble assuming good faith. What do you mean by 'what's happened resently in wikipedia'? Also, would you care to criticize the content, rather than the author? Seems like this would be a part of AGF, something about No Personal Attacks. Ratagonia (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cirt. BoL (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infotable edits
|
It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below doesn't want to make because of a conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. To the user using this template: please explain your conflict of interest in detail below. Please disable this template by changing it to an un-transcluded when the request is handled. |
In an effort to get us into discussion about the actual substance of the edits, can I make a proposal that we start small - with a focus on the infotable?
The one that is in the article currently is: (1) a for-profit company template; (2) lists the incorrect president of the organization and outdated members of the board of directors; (3) includes inaccurate and inapplicable information about revenue and operating income; (4) includes an inaccurate number of employees; and (5) is not alphabetical.
The one I created in the above requested edits section is for not-for-profit organizations, has the updated President and CEO and current list of board of directors, and is alphabetized.
If anyone thinks that the one that exists there now is better in any way than the proposed version, please discuss it here.
If any editors agree that the proposed version is better than the one that is currently on the article, I encourage you to please make that edit. Crystal08 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If the infotable is inaccurate, I think it best to cut it down to a more succinct version, and try to rely solely on WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- How would you view basing the table information on Charity Navigator http://charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6427 and using the thp website for primary-source things like officers and who sits on the board of directors (which, I hope we can agree, is something the thp website can be considered an RS for). Ratagonia (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Primary activities section
What's with all the use of "claims"? And why the tag that it reads like an advertisement (apart from the "claims" language that ensures it does anything but)? The organization's own descriptions, with the article making clear that this is what they are, are an acceptable source for this one section, are they not? There seems to have been an overcompensating reaction to fears the encyclopedia is being undermined by PR, and the article now reads as massively imbalanced. Our response to editors who declare their COI and profess to follow our policies and guidelines should not be for other editors to disregard our pillars, circumvent other policy (the unnecessary "courtesy links" to copyvios in other sections) and ignore our guidelines. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
