Talk:Operation Smile

message: As it stands, this article appears to be drawn in very large part from the organization's own publicity materials (chunks are in fact verbatim from its website; the section headed "Our achievements" is something of a tip-off).  In addition, the article does not include any material on the questions that have occasionally been raised regarding the organization's work, especially in a series of articles in the New York Times in 1999-2000.  Robertissimo 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures may or may not be true, but they definitely need to be traced to a reliable source per WP's guidelines on attribution.  As MingusFace notes, the article is somewhat better than when I first commented above last October, but it could still use considerable improvement, especially when it comes to sourcing and rigorous neutrality. Robertissimo 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view and sources 

message: Why is the salary of the founders in the article?  It's not clear what this brings to the article -- as a reference article on the organization, the particulars of the salary (in this case, unreferenced) seem out of place.  Thoughts?  842U (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the high salary of the CEO and Founder of a non-profit, and the very high percentage of the organization's cash income that is spent on salaries, administration and advertising are extremely valid facts to include in this article. If people want to read the organization's own website and their own perspective on their work, they certainly may. This should be a venue where fuller information is available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.51.32 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But the information in question remains in the article for the time being.  Let's have more discussion on the subject of how best to include or not include this information in the article.  842U (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it is a moot point now cause neither Bill nor Kathy takes compensation from organization.  Operation Smile 990 Form for the year ending June 30, 2007 http://www.operationsmile.org/docs/990_2006.pdf 24.126.31.11 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A good example of biased financial information: in the last post, an anonymous user (of unknown accounting credentials) suggests that by dividing the total income of the organization, the "cost per surgery" can be determined -- without regard for the other functions the organization performs. Is this user predisposed to find, highlight and then post negative comments here?  What are the user's credentials?  Is this user serving a NPOV? What "position" is this poster serving?  
Shall we let anonymous negativity characterize the discussion?  No.  See see WP:Talk.  There are rules and there are guidelines for Talk pages.
The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article.  If you want to give your thinly veiled opinions about the organization, the appropriate place is not Wikipedia.  Attempts to use the article or this discussion page as a platform to pontificate about the subject of the article won't be tolerated.
Please see WP:CIV and AGF before making any derogatory accusations of other posters; please assume good faith.
Please see WP:Talk for more information on how to use a Talk Page. 
In the meantime: communicate, keep on topic, be positive, stay objective, deal with facts, share material, discuss edits, make proposals.
The purpose of the discussion here is try to determine what financial info belongs in the article -- if any.  It's clearly tricky territory.  Small pieces of financial information can easily be made to look damaging or favorable by not giving financial context. 
If there is going to be a judgment associated with the financial information, then that judgment need come from an unbiased editorial source.  If we find a reputable, third party source, then let's include the info.  If we don't, let's be very, very careful about including un-balanced financial information.
Let's move toward an article that projects a neutral point of view on the subject. 842U (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial information in the article? 

message: :A good example of biased financial information: in the last post, an anonymous user (of unknown accounting credentials) suggests that by dividing the total income of the organization, the "cost per surgery" can be determined -- without regard for the other functions the organization performs. Is this user predisposed to find, highlight and then post negative comments here?  What are the user's credentials?  Is this user serving a NPOV? What "position" is this poster serving?  
Shall we let anonymous negativity characterize the discussion?  No.  See see WP:Talk.  There are rules and there are guidelines for Talk pages.
The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article.  If you want to give your thinly veiled opinions about the organization, the appropriate place is not Wikipedia.  Attempts to use the article or this discussion page as a platform to pontificate about the subject of the article won't be tolerated.
Please see WP:CIV and AGF before making any derogatory accusations of other posters; please assume good faith.
Please see WP:Talk for more information on how to use a Talk Page. 
In the meantime: communicate, keep on topic, be positive, stay objective, deal with facts, share material, discuss edits, make proposals.
The purpose of the discussion here is try to determine what financial info belongs in the article -- if any.  It's clearly tricky territory.  Small pieces of financial information can easily be made to look damaging or favorable by not giving financial context. 
If there is going to be a judgment associated with the financial information, then that judgment need come from an unbiased editorial source.  If we find a reputable, third party source, then let's include the info.  If we don't, let's be very, very careful about including un-balanced financial information.
Let's move toward an article that projects a neutral point of view on the subject. 842U (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: A few posts here recently have been of an attacking nature, and there are several recent anonymous posts to the article that either are vandalism or border on vandalism.
Again, Wikipedia is about neutral information; let's see what we can do to keep the article neutral and civil.
We can also consider locking the article to prevent vandalizing contribs by anonymous posters. 842U (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain to me how quoting a sentence out of a New York Times article that has been referenced by another user can be termed attacking, or vandalizm? The article in question is currently spun to create one impression, but you refuse to allow the criticism that exists in the article to be highlighted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the 'we' that can fix this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 42ofcourse (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It appears that user 842U was welcomed back to Wikipedia after promising not to engage in sockpuppetry, and the editor seems to be contributing significant amounts of good content. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous, serious and negative statements

message: I've removed the field of flags from Smile Train.  It seems like it would be a headache to constantly maintain, and conceptually it doesn't inherently add any more info than saying "more than 80 countries".  Would a similar removal of flags be appropriate for this article? - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: I've created this account to suggest uncontroversial, unbiased edits to articles related to Operation Smile. I do not intend to make any direct edits to Operation Smile's article or entries. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of Operation Smile and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to Operation Smile's article, hopefully leading to a much improved and complete article. I would like to suggest adding the following to the Financials section of this article to reflect the organizations most updated financials: 
"Operation Smile received $93,351,353 in revenue in fiscal year 2016.  76.3% of the revenue was allocated to Programs, 16.2% to Fundraising and 7.1% to Administration."
Source Audited Financials: http://www.operationsmile.org/sites/default/files/FY16.pdf
Apberniard (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source given makes the statement seem promotional. Request declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Edit Request  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Smile. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hourofpower.org/interviews/bill.magee.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925042104/http://www.centuryfilmsltd.com/the-facemakers.htm to http://www.centuryfilmsltd.com/the-facemakers.htm
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) 03:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified