Talk:The Hunger Project/Archive 1

message: *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)
thread_title:  Proposed approach towards resolving this dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  What is the issue here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *I concur.  Open discussion should stay on the page as part of a viewable record. Smeelgova 07:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jcoonrod|Jcoonrod]] commentary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletions on talk page 

message: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: ===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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Administrator Input 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Administrator Input

message: * 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)
thread_title:  NPOV vs. Balanced POV 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Discussion of agreement to the mediation 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Dispute over Categories 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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. 
*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)
thread_title:  Removing Redundancy 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Framing the section on criticism 

message: * The insertion about criticism in the beginning is imbalanced, so I've added balance.Jcoonrod 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance in the introduction 

message: * Addition to include brief history of The Hunger Project.Jcoonrod 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance in the history section 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Corrections in the criticism section 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputes in the financial section 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  How much Werner Erhard is too much? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  From user page [[User:Danny|Danny]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Giambalvo article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early Hunger Project Witness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earl Babbie "You Can Make A Difference" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Objectives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hunger]] 

message: Per the ruling, I have removed some of the negative comments that lack verifiable references. Jcoonrod 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I reverted. --Descendall 05:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I standardized many of the references per Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style.  Will finish later.  Kat'n'Yarn 08:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-arbitration cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolution of programs section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion over arbitration decision and Wikipedia guidelines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Administrative, fundraising expenses section 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Ok, what the heck does THP do? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added references to THP sites in Financial section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hunger Project feeds itself 

message: Interestingly User:Smeelgova has placed a counter claim on the Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. I am unclear if my initial edit counts. Anyone know? Mark1800 06:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please place comments on [[WP:AN/3RR]] about [[The_Hunger_Project#Public_criticism]] here

message: 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. 
*Mark1800 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  weblinks that have ref tag to themselves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This reads like an advert with a bunch of thp.com self-links 

message: ::::::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Break 1

message: 
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).
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 [] in Bolivia, and Chirapaq [] 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: ).
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)
thread_title:  Request for edits and editors 

message: 
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)
thread_title:  Infotable edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary activities section 

message: 
In October, all organizational history of The Hunger Project was removed from the section that is currently labeled “History.” All that is now left is the listing of every sourced, poorly sourced, and unsourced criticism of the organization. I am posting suggested edits below to make an article that is well-sourced and NPOV (to see the version that was removed, see: ).
I would like to suggest the following edits be made: 
1. Public criticism should appear in its own section (not underneath history, as it is not organizational history). Because “criticism” is POV, I request that the section be titled “Public Perception” to reflect a more NPOV.
2. Immediate removal of unsourced and poorly sourced statements.
The section that is there now has numerous statements that are poorly or completely unsourced and should be removed immediately.
A. Items that are unsourced:
Since its inception, there has been criticism of The Hunger Project by the public and the press.
the organization's original ties to Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and their philosophies. 
The Hunger Project has responded to articles it considers false and defamatory by sending letters threatening legal action, and in some instances undertaking legal proceedings, resulting, in some cases, in apologies, correction and payment of damages. 
the lack of available, third-party, non-corporate information to verify its claims.
The following section violates WP:NOR and is unsourced. Additionally, Carol Giambalvo and Rick Ross are not W:RS, particularly in this case given that it is a controversial issue. Also, I am not sure whether the fact that The Hunger Project complains when articles are published that they consider to be false and defamatory should be considered as a criticism of the organization itself. 
Mother Jones, the The Christian Century, the fifth estate, Carol Giambalvo, Rick Ross, and Jim Provenzano have all received complaints from The Hunger Project for publishing articles that The Hunger Project considered to be false and defamatory.
...the Hunger Project has reacted strongly against other reporters who have attempted to cover the group's activities. Pat Lynch, then an NBC News reporter, stated that the Hunger Project carried out a four-month campaign to discredit her while she was preparing what eventually became an NBC Evening News segment in 1980. And when Dan Noyes was asked by a radio station in 1983 to participate in a program with a Hunger Project spokesperson, the organization refused to appear. Instead they requested a tape of the program with Noyes alone for review by the group's lawyer. 
B. Items that are poorly sourced: The following statements cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources that are not acceptable per WP:V and WP:RS, particularly in the case of controversial issues and per WP:BLP, which applies to The Hunger Project based on the arbitration decision . I request they be removed immediately:
the focus of the Project (1977-1990) on public education and advocacy, rather than providing food and other direct action
recent activity of The Hunger Project to remove critical articles from the Internet.
Per WP:RS, when adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. Thus the following statement was printed by a college newspaper and can not be found anywhere else and should be removed immediately:
On May 30, 1981 the board of directors of Oxfam Canada passed a resolution which stated they would not endorse any activities or programs sponsored by The Hunger Project, nor would they accept funds from the project.
3. Restructuring of timeline
I request that the entire timeline be removed as all it does is re-list the references that are being used to substantiate the previous comments. I would request, instead that a summary of the criticisms within sources that follow WP:RS is outlined, with references to those sources (instead of listing them in the main article). For example, a suggested edit would be:
The Hunger Project has been criticized for its original ties to Werner Erhard, Erhard Seminars Training, and their philosophies and the early focus of its work (1977-1990) on public education and advocacy rather than providing food and other direct action.
The reliable sources to this statement, as I see them, are: Newsweek, Mother Jones, Los Angeles Times, Seeds Magazines, New Internationalist, Forbes, The Gazette, Christian Century, and SCP Journal.
Moreover, I would request, in order to present a more NPOV, that a statement that indicates that The Hunger Project has been praised for its efforts to end hunger be included, with links to the below references:
Ghanaian Villagers Making Their Way Out of Poverty, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, July 25, 2005. 
“Halving hunger: it can be done,” UN Millennium Project 2005, Task Force on Hunger, United Nations Development Programme (Earthscan 2005).
The Hunger Project, American Jewish World Service recognized for promoting gender equity, Monday Developments, InterAction, May 20, 2001.
Future, NEED Magazine, Issue 2, 2007.
Women Empowerment Brings Social Change in Many Palani Villages, The Hindu, March 24, 2008.
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.
“First batch of Indian elected women representatives graduates from Aagaz,” Geetha N. Bhardwaj, OneWorld South Asia, November 13, 2006.
“Edumadze Lauds Hunger Project,” Ghanaian Chronicle, AllAfrica, Inc., March 30, 2005.
“Awards for Ghana president and Benin agriculture specialist,” Agence France Press, October 4, 1993.
4. I also suggest that we remove the governance and administration and individuals section as this is redundant to what is included in the infotable.
 
Suggested New History Section
I do think it would be beneficial to also include an organizational history section in the article, and have put some suggested statements with references below.
The Hunger Project was founded in 1977 by John Denver, the entertainer; Werner Erhard, founder of Erhard Seminars Training, and Professor Bob Fuller, former president of Oberlin College. Erhard served on the board of The Hunger Project until December 1990 and Denver served on the board until April 1993. 
Hunger for Justice, Dann Dulin, A&U Magazine: America’s AIDS Magazine, October 2007.
Newsweek, The Hunger Project Feeds Its Coffers
In its early years, The Hunger Project’s focus was on raising public support and money in the fight to end hunger with “education for action” programs throughout the United States and a documentary on hunger in Africa featuring such celebrities as John Ritter and John Denver. 
Newsweek, The Hunger Project Feeds Its Coffers
Abroad at Home: Mankind was my business, Anthony Lewis, The New York Times, December 25, 1980.
Nationwide Crusade to End World Hunger, John F. Dunn, The New York Times, October 6, 1985.
During that period, it was active in the formation of InterAction, the largest coalition of U.S.-based international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) focused on the world’s poor and most vulnerable people, in 1984.
Experiences, governance and relations of Interaction, Portal of National NGO Platforms, September 22, 2007., InterAction
The Hunger Project held a media campaign in 1980 to aid Cambodian refugees, raising close to $1 million divided among 18 traditional hunger relief organizations including CARE, Save the Children and UNICEF. 
Newsweek, The Hunger Project Feeds Its Coffers
In 1990, The Hunger Project began programs on the ground in the developing world. {citation needed}
In 1991, The Hunger Project launched the epicenter strategy in Africa based on its strategic planning-in-action methodology. 
Mesqan epicenter: center for mobilizing rural communities, Groum Abate, Capital, Vol. 10, No. 479, Sunday, February 17, 2008. 
The Hunger Project-Bangladesh was also founded in 1991.
Bangladeshis Die from ‘Persistent Hunger’ Every Day: Report, Xinhua News Agency, November 15, 2000.
The Hunger Project expanded its programs to Latin America in 1997.
Puerto Rico Profile: Raul Julia, Puerto Rico Herald, February 11, 2000.
The Hunger Project launched the African Woman Food Farmer Initiative in October 1999 to provide credit to women food farmers in Africa.
Africa-at-Large: Africa’s Low Food Production Due to Marginalisation of Women, Jerome Hule, Panafrican News Agency, AllAfrica, Inc., April 27, 2000.
I welcome the help of other editors in immediately removing unsourced and poorly sourced statements. I hope that other editors will carefully review these suggested edits and sources, and implement the edits they feel are good and meet WP policies and guidelines. If you disagree with anything or have any questions, I look forward to discussing them here on the talk page.
Crystal08 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edits to history section 

message: This article used to list published publications and they have been deleted. Publications are a factual matter and are an important record for most topics.  I believe "Ending Hunger: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" should be mentioned.
I'm unsure if the "Source Document" was publically published or an internal document - it looks like a book but it's hard to tell.
Any objections to including a Publications section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.247.242 (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications 

message: This needs a chapter. John Denver in the early days lent a lot to helping this aid org move forward.
I will start a histry section. Forget the past and all the deletes from this page. Edit: John im on ypur side  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.247.242 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunger Project Formation - John Denver 

message: This article appears to be full of rather scrappy non-sequiturs.  Surely there's some reliable information available about what this organisation has been actually doing lately and what results they have been getting? DaveApter (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hunger Project. 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/20120417171337/http://www.thp.org/who_we_are/board_of_directors/joan_holmes to http://www.thp.org/who_we_are/board_of_directors/joan_holmes
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) 15:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified