Talk:Global Environment Facility

message: Looking again, the page seems to have reverted to resembling a page fr0m the GEF's own website... full of what it says it is doing, nothing on what is is actually doing, critical perspectives etc. Given that this Facility spends Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money supposedly to 'save the global environment' with very little to show for it, surely a vaguely critical and 'objective' perspective would be reasonable? Would therefore vote to revert to previous version....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.189.141 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled, July 2008 

message: Once more the GEF's staff have been hard at work here, with the latest text even more self-serving than before..... is wikipedia really meant to serve just an extension of their PR materials? Damn I wish someone paid me to add a little note of reality.. anyone else interested in this little struggle? come on in, the water's tepid! 86.129.96.148 (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled, August 2008 

message: The controversial debate on this discussion page is quite rich, and I wonder how the article could be improved based on some of the previously posted comments. Here are some suggestions on the article and on the framework of how to discuss the article.
About the article itself
*The article lacks references, except one. References should be added after each paragraph.
*As pointed out above, the article indeed reads as if it was written by staff of the GEF secreteriat, repeating information already on the GEF website. Some of the edits do come from User:GEFSec. So it least these edits are not done anonymously. However, Wikipedia:Username policy says the following:"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem. Similarly, editing with a possible conflict of interest, such as editing an article about your employer, is not disallowed, but anyone wishing to do so is advised to read the Business' FAQ."
*The article so far lacks examples of concrete projects financed by GEF and specific benefits provided by these projects, as pointed out above. It should not be too difficult to add those, and they would greatly enhance the article.
*The article mentions an independent GEF evaluation office. The discussion page mentions independent reviews of GEF. It would be very useful to include a summary of both evaluations and the independent reviews in the article. The web page of the evaluation office is an obvious starting point:http://www.gefweb.org/gefevaluation.aspx?id=148
*It would be useful to have a separate section on criticism of GEF, if there has been criticism of the GEF from credible sources. A quick web search did not yield much of substance, but I may be proven wrong.
*There are some repetitions, e.g. on the GEF executing agencies which are listed both under structure and under history.
*The various conventions listed in the article should be converted to internal links.
*There seem to be a few factual mistakes in the article. For example, the Rio Earth Summit took place in 1992, not in 1994.
*As the article stands now, I believe it should be tagged as lacking references, and perhaps also for not having a neutral point of view. Views from others on this would be appreciated.
About how to discuss the article
*It would be useful if contributors to the discussion would register themselves as individuals and discontinue the use of the corporate user account
*It would be good to sign contributions, as it is customary on Wikipedia
*The early comments (apparently from 2005) are detailed and there are reactions to comments. Recent comments remain unanswered. It is always nice to see reactions to comments.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions to move forward with this article 

message: GEFSec is just trying to describe what the GEF does. As far as I know an encyclopedia should provide only true information without judgment.  The information provided by GEFSec is based on documents and publicly available data. Criticism should be supported with examples and not by modifying the text in a malicious way. (GEFSec (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled, May 2011