Talk:World Vision United States

message: I just added a picture of the main office in the US Headquarters office complex.  This is not entirely appropriate, because World Vision is an international organization and there is not room for pictures of the main office in every country.  However, the US office is special because the organization was founded in that country.  Also as of right now, the only pages for country specific World Vision branches are for India and Australia.  Perhaps in time if or when an article gets created specifically for World Vision USA, then this picture would be more appropriate there only, but until someone does more work I think it is appropriate to keep this picture on this general page about World Vision.  It might be appropriate to show the US office here anyway.  Any objections? Blue Rasberry 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Added pic of US headquarters office

message: This article's historical background seems a bit too good to be true.  I already revised it to make it seem a little more encyclopedic in style, but I'm still not sure about the factual accuracy.  World Vision's official site says on their about us page []
"Dr. Bob Pierce began World Vision to help children orphaned in the Korean War.  To provide long-term, ongoing care for children in crisis, World Vision developed its first child sponsorship program in Korea in 1953."
However, the article as it stands first says that WV was founded in 1950 in the U.S. and then in the history section that it was started by Dr. Bob Pierce in China.
Also would it be bad etiquette to remove the irrelevant material below this on the talk page?
Edonovan 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified the organizational beginnings, and removed non-historical material from the section. Tomh009 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does the year 1951 come from? Since the "official" version itself is vague, would it be safer to say "in the early 1950s"? Neomal (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical background

message: I've removed all comments on THIS PAGE (Talk) about how cool World Vision is, how important their mission is, etc.  The purpose of a talk page is to discuss what should and should not be in the article, when someone has a question, or something is controversial. Wikipedia talk pages are NOT intended to be message boards. John Broughton 17:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the value of the World Vision mission and organization

message: While it is reasonably neutral to report that there are conspiracy theorists who think that World Vision is a CIA front, the statement "These claims whilst outrageous, do make logical sense..." is an opinion and also not NPOV. Thatcher131 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been alleged (I don't know to what extent these allegations have been proven) that John Hinckley Jr. (attempted assassin of Ronald Reagan) led the World Vision chapter in Denver, while Mark David Chapman (murderer of John Lennon) was a World Vision employee.  Additionally, the Rev. Jim Jones is said to have worked closely with World Vision while his Peoples' Temple was located in Ukiah, California.  If these allegations can be determined to have any substance, the mere fact that World Vision has had so much involvement with such, um, interesting people, is probably sufficient to warrant mention in the article.  It could reasonably be interpreted as evidence that some of the rumours swirling around World Vision, in terms of its being a CIA front or whatnot, may not be entirely without validity.  For all practical purposes, its probably impossible to prove definitively that any organization is a front for intelligence activities, yet clearly such fronts do exist, and when such circumstantial evidence presents itself (assuming the veracity of those claims), it seems reasonable to include it in an article, especially within the context of an organization where such lingering suspicions are long standing, as in the case of World Vision.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to KevinOKeeffe:  Sources?  these allegations seem outlandish and unrealistic, without verifiable sourcing.  Clearthinker00 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories

message: The official name of the organization is World Vision International so the main article should be at that page with a redirect from World Vision Thatcher131 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: At the personal page of Karl_Habsburg-Lothringen some notes about the World vision scandal in Austria are mentioned. Could somebody please add additional information about it?
:I also followed the link to learn more about the Austria scandal, but found nothing.  Leaving out a scandal that resulted in jail time for the country director smacks of POV.--Counsel 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, I noted multiple articles in the Austrian press about it at that time, I will search at the Austian news papers web pages, so I might find an article or two ... --Dabese 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: the German Article has plenty information + credible sources on this.
===Details===
"Quick&Dirty" translation:
World Vision has been active in Austria since 1976. The first Group to do so, World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk, was closed down by World Vision International after massive criminal activities of its Austrian CEO. A second organisation called World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung   was founded after this in 1998 and has been working there ever since.
* World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk (until 1998)
The first structure „World Vision Österreich – Christliches Hilfswerk“ was shut down in November 1998, after internal checks of World Vision International had found irregularities in its bookkeeping  and the documentation of its child sponsorship-programm.(Source: Austrian Development Agency: World Vision Österreich: Kofinanzierte Projekte in Afrika. Archive 04/1999.(German)) 
The media response to the scandal was quite high in Austria since the grandson of Austria's last emperor was involved. Karl von Habsburg who was also a Menber of the European Parliament at that time was a Member of "World Vision Österreich"'s board. Two investigations ("peer reviews") by World Vision proofed irregularities. An investigastion by the Austrian police showed lateron an massive embezzlement of funds by its CEO Martina Krones-Taurer. While the investigations still were ongoing the Groups rights to use the name of WV were revoked and a new structure founded. ( resume in the magazine "Datum" (German)).
Investigations by KPMG auditor proofed financial transactions to the International Paneuropean Union using funds for the EU-election campaign 1996. (hagalil.com: „Unkorrekte Geldflüsse“ - Nach Prüfbericht steigt Druck auf Habsburg) (German).
Martina Taurer-Krones (Die Presse: Betrugsprozess: Krones-Taurer erneut angeklagt. 26.01.2007) and her husband went to trial and were accused among other charges to have embezzled 1,1 Millionen Euro in funds for privat purposes like vacations and sportscars. Following long investigations the trial started in November 2003. She was sentenced to 3 years prison in September 2004 (no probation), her husband as a complice to 2 years (probation granted).
"World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung" started its activities in 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemissimo II (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal in World Vision Austria 

message: "Quick&Dirty" translation:
World Vision has been active in Austria since 1976. The first Group to do so, World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk, was closed down by World Vision International after massive criminal activities of its Austrian CEO. A second organisation called World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung   was founded after this in 1998 and has been working there ever since.
* World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk (until 1998)
The first structure „World Vision Österreich – Christliches Hilfswerk“ was shut down in November 1998, after internal checks of World Vision International had found irregularities in its bookkeeping  and the documentation of its child sponsorship-programm.(Source: Austrian Development Agency: World Vision Österreich: Kofinanzierte Projekte in Afrika. Archive 04/1999.(German)) 
The media response to the scandal was quite high in Austria since the grandson of Austria's last emperor was involved. Karl von Habsburg who was also a Menber of the European Parliament at that time was a Member of "World Vision Österreich"'s board. Two investigations ("peer reviews") by World Vision proofed irregularities. An investigastion by the Austrian police showed lateron an massive embezzlement of funds by its CEO Martina Krones-Taurer. While the investigations still were ongoing the Groups rights to use the name of WV were revoked and a new structure founded. ( resume in the magazine "Datum" (German)).
Investigations by KPMG auditor proofed financial transactions to the International Paneuropean Union using funds for the EU-election campaign 1996. (hagalil.com: „Unkorrekte Geldflüsse“ - Nach Prüfbericht steigt Druck auf Habsburg) (German).
Martina Taurer-Krones (Die Presse: Betrugsprozess: Krones-Taurer erneut angeklagt. 26.01.2007) and her husband went to trial and were accused among other charges to have embezzled 1,1 Millionen Euro in funds for privat purposes like vacations and sportscars. Following long investigations the trial started in November 2003. She was sentenced to 3 years prison in September 2004 (no probation), her husband as a complice to 2 years (probation granted).
"World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung" started its activities in 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemissimo II (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details

message: I think it is wrong to use $1Bn the 2005 figure for two reasons: (1) the auditted accounts aren't signed off (2) there is a lot of exception tsunami income which inflates things compared to a typcial year. Anyone agree? --BozMotalk 14:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me a reference for that? Also "partnership-wide" including 100% of income with goes through partnerships or just its proportionate share? --BozMo talk 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 2005 figures

message: The following statements were removed for verification:
"Yet, World Vision is not respectful of other faiths. It engages in proselytism and religious coercion."
These statements could be quite harmful to the reputation of the World Vision and hinder the efforts of this and other charitable organizations. They should only be reinserted into the article if accompanied with a verifiable and reputable source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) .
Well proselytism is given. Its a missionairy org. Coercion up for discussion.Bakaman Bakatalk 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the (i.e. practices) after the mission statement. No organisation or organization on earth of this scale can really identify these too so accurately --BozMo talk 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Vision engages in coercion 

message: *While of course outright, unverified statements of criticism have no place in this article, it should also not read like a World Vision brochure. External links and article links should include at least a few that are critical of W.V., if any exist. Sentences like "Each national office enjoys an equal voice in the organization's governance, erasing traditional distinctions between the developed and developing world" are blatant promotions of this organization. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising space.
Escheffel 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing the veracity of a charitable organization's statements to those of a pack of mass murderers is, well, ludicrous. Jmdeur (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality badly needed 

message: I happen to think (as someone who works for a non-religious relief organisation of a similar size) that the article isn't that bad. I also quite like World Vision though (and we partner them in some places so I cannot claim to be NPOV). A few queries though: last time I checked although World Vision had a mission to help everyone you could only work for them if you were a committed Christian. Is that still true and is it true everywhere? Seems pretty relevant to me. Also I have noticed on the Google Video Tony Campolo advert for Compassion that Compassion promises to "evangelise" every child they sponsor (and Tony says "I just know she'll love the Lord"). Despite being a Christian I found that deeply disturbing. Can we get a position on whether WV does this (which I think is of interest given the vulnerable position of a sponsored child ref the organisation they are helped by)?  --BozMo talk 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FWIW 

message: I have issued a massive clean up to this section of the article as it was just getting excessive and not consistent with WP:NOT. All country sites can be accessed via their international portal, so there is no use linking to each individual country site. thewinchester 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think somebody put them back up (assuming you took them down). I'll remove them again. For the editor who has put them up, see WP:LINKFARM. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I just took them down, but I want to post this link  here. It was listed under the EL section, but it could be used as a ref in the future. I just wanted to keep it safe here. Killiondude (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I have proposed the merger of articles World Vision Australia and World Vision India into this article. These articles in their own right add little information about themselves, and would be best treated within this article under a new section titled global activities. From there, the activities of these two areas and many more can be documented better. Discussion is being transcluded to the talk pages of the other two articles to ensure all interested parties can be made aware. thewinchester 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[World Vision Australia]] and [[World Vision India]] into this article 

message: I reassessed this page because it lacks references and the article needs clean up in general. Killiondude (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-assess

message: I'm going to remove this article from WP Africa. The article states that this organization aids in 97 countries. Last time I checked, there weren't 97 countries in Africa, so they must be doing stuff elsewhere in the world as well. A quick glance shows aid is being provided by World Vision to Turkey, China, as well as countries in Africa. So unless we attach each country's/continent's WikiProject to this article (which would be a nightmare), I suggest removing Africa because that is unfair to the work they do elsewhere in the world. I'll remove it for now, and if anybody disagrees we can discuss it here. Killiondude (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Africa 

message: I just marked the page as needing attention on both WikiProject Christianity and WP Organizations. The page is somewhat of a mess. It lacks a lot of citations, it has been tagged for neutrality, and the prose needs to be connected into one unified article instead of choppy sections. Killiondude (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing attention 

message: "Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reports from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language..., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."[citation needed]
Some[who?] argue that the very concept of Christian aid relief to post-colonial countries is hypocritical in nature as the root cause of poverty, conflict and injustice in those areas is a consequence of the colonialism imposed in the name of Christianity. It is argued that organizations like World Vision de-politicize complex issues by offering an oversimplified, superficial solution that leaves the original, imperialist, eurocentric, 'paternalistic' power hierarchy intact."
Although it's argued, it seems like through the use of wikipedia's extensive language base, this person has managed to make his sentence seem as though  it's realistic. He hasn't cited the quote, or who argue over the Christian aspect. 75.157.52.134 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This section needs to be removed unless accompanied with citation

message: proselytizing is a concern. Does anyone know of any reports?
I know that Samaritans purse has a history of making catholics in latin america attend evangelical worships services before giving aid to them and that world vision is closely associated with it.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proselytizing 

message: When you read this article it is hardly possible to determinate when it speeks of World Vision International and when of World Vision United States or another national organisation. We have six different articles on World Vision in Germany because of notable differences between the two above and World Vision Austria (which existed twice due to a funding scandal), World Vision Germany and its notable branches the German World Vision Childre Study and the German World Vision Children Award.
Are there no differences to World Vision Australia oder Japan or Uganda or (South) Korea? --Diskriminierung (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicrimination between World Vision International and World Vision United States or other 

message: You can get the old Logo from http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:retkj5.7.49 or from here:  as SVG. --Diskriminierung (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Hi my name is Alicia and I attend Syracuse University. For my political science class I am required to contribute at least 20 paragraphs of information to an article about a NGO. I have chosen to research and edit the World Vision article for the next month. I would appreciate any and feedback you have and help! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcoll02 (talk • contribs) 
:Cool. I see you're part of the campus outreach thing that Wikimedia is doing. I think each of you have a mentor or something, but feel free to ask me on my talk page or here if you need any help. This article is quite an endeavor. Killiondude (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamp

message: user:Diskriminierung just changed the article title from "World Vision" to "World Vision United States".  I am not sure that this is appropriate because I think that the name of the organization is "World Vision".  What is the actual name?  I have no objection to renaming the article to "World Vision (United States)".  Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Diskriminierung is a german vandal. 92.252.64.13 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The official Name is still "World Vision, Inc" and they do business as "World Vision" (see ). The same name it was given in 1950; "World Vision United States" is no official name. World Vision, Inc also used since the late 1960s the name "World Vision International" (since 1972 this is a registered trademark) because it was at this time the founding and controlling organization of World Vision, in particular also on international level. E.g. the president of World Vision, Inc. was also the international President and the "International Board" was an entity within World Vision Inc. and its headquarter was called International Headquarter. In the late 1970s a spin-off was registered  which took over the international functions (International President, International Board, the Mission Advanced Research and Communication Center, ..), the leading staff from World Vision Inc., and also the name "World Vision International". After this split World Vision, Inc. was basically only a support organization that is mainly responsible for acquiring funds within the US which it forwards then to World Vision International. However, even after the split both entities were for a long time controlled by the same people and even today they share staff and facilities. --MTYM (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

text: In my view the article should be changed back to "World Vision" or at least moved to World vision (US). --MTYM (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

text: What is definitely needed is a single article that covers the whole organization, including national members and international structure, from its founding in 1950 to today. After the separation, none of the two current articles does this. They are rather hastily separated with mainly only some copy-pasting. The whole organization was always refereed to as "World Vision" (today World Vision International as well as the national offices use the same logo with the label "World Vision"), so this is the best name for the article. "World Vision International" was only used since 1960s (and 1972 registered as a trade mark) first for World Vision Inc. and is misleading because later it was used with permission from World Vision Inc. for the newly registered international structure, and does not cover the national members. "World Vision Partnership" is today also an (unofficial) name for the whole organization but it only refers to the organization after it was again restructured in the 1990s and would be misleading if it is used for the time before. I think within an article "World Vision" also the most important national members and also the international structure "World Vision International" can be described so that no further article is necessary. But if a separate article about the US support unit is wanted I would suggest "World Vision Inc" or World Vision (Inc.). This is the official name under which this support organization is registered. "World Vision United Staates" is only an inofficial name that was first used in 1980, after the international part of the old World Vision Inc. was split off and it became only a support structure working basically only within the borders of the United States. It would be misleading to use this name for this organization before this split. --MTYM (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree with MTYM.  On this talk page there is a rationale for keeping the articles together but there never was a reason brought to this talk page for splitting them.  The pages should be merged.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to World Vision United States

message: I'm not really clear on Wikipedia policy, so as an employee of World Vision US, I am submitting a few small changes here instead of directly editing the article.
Please adjust
From 1966 on the organisation used in business also the name to "World Vision International"[5] but from 1977 on this name was reserved for the umbrella organisation World Vision International.[6][7] and the founding organization as a member of world vision international is called world vision united states whenever a distinction is necessary.
to
From 1966 on the organisation used in business also the name to "World Vision International"[5] but from 1977 on this name was reserved for the umbrella organisation World Vision International.[6][7] and the founding organization as a member of World Vision International is called World Vision United States whenever a distinction is necessary.
That is, simply capitalization of the organizations at the end of this section
World Vision International is called World Vision United States
Tvjames (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look above you can see that no one could find sources differentiating World Vision, World Vision International, and World Vision United States. Do you have official published sources explaining the differences? If you want to make proofreading corrections then feel free. If you want to add content then respect WP:COI and make a note on your userpage that you are an employee, but feel free to make noncontroversial changes to the article. People will watch what you are doing and it will be fine.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Typographical Changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on World Vision United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303231437/http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/hr-faith to http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/hr-faith
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209032407/http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/radio.nsf/stable/wvradiostory_120907_climatechange to http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/radio.nsf/stable/wvradiostory_120907_climatechange
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified