This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethecon Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm very concerned about this:
[1]
Wikipedia is not a platform for accusing
living people of committing atrocities. Don't do that.
bobrayner (
talk)
21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
One editor attempted to add an explanation for why two recipients received their nomination. The other editor reverts their attempts, but will not respond to repeated requests for compromise on the talk page. 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The bot sent me. I strongly agree with Freikorp providing WP:COMPREHENSIVE critiques of corporate malfeasance. WP:BLP does not apply because corporations are not living people. They are groups with limited de facto and de jure liability who can not sue for libel or slander in the U.S., especially in the face of documented grounds as are clear in this case. Not only does the WP:NPOV policy mandate that both sides of corporate behavior be reflected, good and bad, but WP:LEAD requires that major controversies be represented in the introduction of articles, not just the body. I intend to restore the deleted text in a way which makes it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse the views of the article's subject. The idea that experienced editors would think that "Wikipedia's voice" could be mistaken in this way is incomprehensible to me. EllenCT ( talk) 03:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The bot sent me too. Something is amiss here, with this award, or with the organization. It seems that Diane Wilson, winner of the 1st Blue Planet award, is ALSO the deliverer of two or more Black Planet Awards, to Xe and the Taiwanese company (she flew to Virginia and Taibei to hand deliver each). Note that her name is prominent in the article sources as well. The source of the 2008 award to Xe is merely a huge quote of a press release by Ethecon. It isn't clear who does what, i.e. Code Pink, Black Planet, Ethecon:
via Code pink awards Blackwater Black planet AwardDiane Wilson—author of An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas, Holy Roller: Growing Up in the Church of Knock Down, Drag Out; or, How I Quit Loving a Blue-Eyed Jesus and founding member of Code Pink—made a special delivery this month. She walked right up to Erik Prince, owner of the infamous corporation Blackwater... (and since outed, re-named “XE”), and handed him his prize for…Worst Company of the Year. Along with Code Pink activists... Wilson hand-delivered the prize and Open Letter to Erik Prince’s front door in McLean, Virginia. Formally called “The Black Planet Award”—and designed this year by a German grassroots foundation, Ethecon— the award targets the practices and persons behind XE..."
The award does target people, see bold font above. Whose award is it, Code Pink's or Ethecon's?
I believe that Xe-Blackwater is an appallingly evil organization that supports despotic governments and even exploits mercenaries. They recruit poor men from South America, give inadequate training, then send them half way around the world to die, while making a profit. Regardless, Diane Wilson shouldn't be using Wikipedia to help facilitate funding of her mission, which is what this resembles. I hope that she didn't deceptively convince some kindly German people with money as financial backers.
The entire article needs source checks. It has lots of grammatical errors too. I have the same concerns as
bobrayner, and
Torchiest too, about this article.--
FeralOink (
talk)
04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Though denied access, the Gulf Coast residents were not silenced. Diane stood in the lobby and pulled out her award for Dudley: a globe, which she then doused in black “oil.” She was surrounded by photographers, TV cameras, and police who detained her until the meeting was concluded. Tracy, Mike, Byron, and Bryan, meanwhile, were swarmed with press. When BP offered to let one of them in, they said “all or none.”
As a general rule when proposed text does not badly violate various Wikipedia traditions...
There has been some useful commentary by editors about "soapboxing" and the supposition that accuratly covering details about an individual's, governmental agency's, or corporate entity's activities constitutes "soapboxing." I must disagree with this classification since Wikipedia is intended to be, well, encyclopedic, and provided details about someone's or something's behavior and activities (provided there are testable, falsifiable references and citations to support the information) is wholly appropriate.
Also Wikipedia rules and guidelines are intended to be guidelines which assist editors in providing a useful volunteer-created product used around the world, so even if discussing a living person's policies, practices, behaviors, and actions were to violate Wikiepdia traditions, when such information is accurate, referenced with testability, and the citations are solid, guidelines against covering truthful attributes of a living individual gain less weight than the desire for encyclopedic information.
Of course there is always motivations by editors to wish to avoid having information covered, either due to religious, political, ideological, or financial reasons. At the same time there are editors who wish to underscore certain behaviors and activities motivated by their own hobby-horses. Contention arises yet the resolving issue should be whether the proposed text being discussed has valid references to support them.
Also an editor who disagrees with proposed text should never just reverse an editor's text without explanation or without discussing it first. Everyone is a volunteer, after all, and we don't wanr rude behavior to stop very valuable editors from contributing to the project. Damotclese ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If our only source for what Ethecon actually does is a blog, how notable is this foundation? bobrayner ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethecon Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm very concerned about this:
[1]
Wikipedia is not a platform for accusing
living people of committing atrocities. Don't do that.
bobrayner (
talk)
21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
One editor attempted to add an explanation for why two recipients received their nomination. The other editor reverts their attempts, but will not respond to repeated requests for compromise on the talk page. 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The bot sent me. I strongly agree with Freikorp providing WP:COMPREHENSIVE critiques of corporate malfeasance. WP:BLP does not apply because corporations are not living people. They are groups with limited de facto and de jure liability who can not sue for libel or slander in the U.S., especially in the face of documented grounds as are clear in this case. Not only does the WP:NPOV policy mandate that both sides of corporate behavior be reflected, good and bad, but WP:LEAD requires that major controversies be represented in the introduction of articles, not just the body. I intend to restore the deleted text in a way which makes it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse the views of the article's subject. The idea that experienced editors would think that "Wikipedia's voice" could be mistaken in this way is incomprehensible to me. EllenCT ( talk) 03:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The bot sent me too. Something is amiss here, with this award, or with the organization. It seems that Diane Wilson, winner of the 1st Blue Planet award, is ALSO the deliverer of two or more Black Planet Awards, to Xe and the Taiwanese company (she flew to Virginia and Taibei to hand deliver each). Note that her name is prominent in the article sources as well. The source of the 2008 award to Xe is merely a huge quote of a press release by Ethecon. It isn't clear who does what, i.e. Code Pink, Black Planet, Ethecon:
via Code pink awards Blackwater Black planet AwardDiane Wilson—author of An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas, Holy Roller: Growing Up in the Church of Knock Down, Drag Out; or, How I Quit Loving a Blue-Eyed Jesus and founding member of Code Pink—made a special delivery this month. She walked right up to Erik Prince, owner of the infamous corporation Blackwater... (and since outed, re-named “XE”), and handed him his prize for…Worst Company of the Year. Along with Code Pink activists... Wilson hand-delivered the prize and Open Letter to Erik Prince’s front door in McLean, Virginia. Formally called “The Black Planet Award”—and designed this year by a German grassroots foundation, Ethecon— the award targets the practices and persons behind XE..."
The award does target people, see bold font above. Whose award is it, Code Pink's or Ethecon's?
I believe that Xe-Blackwater is an appallingly evil organization that supports despotic governments and even exploits mercenaries. They recruit poor men from South America, give inadequate training, then send them half way around the world to die, while making a profit. Regardless, Diane Wilson shouldn't be using Wikipedia to help facilitate funding of her mission, which is what this resembles. I hope that she didn't deceptively convince some kindly German people with money as financial backers.
The entire article needs source checks. It has lots of grammatical errors too. I have the same concerns as
bobrayner, and
Torchiest too, about this article.--
FeralOink (
talk)
04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Though denied access, the Gulf Coast residents were not silenced. Diane stood in the lobby and pulled out her award for Dudley: a globe, which she then doused in black “oil.” She was surrounded by photographers, TV cameras, and police who detained her until the meeting was concluded. Tracy, Mike, Byron, and Bryan, meanwhile, were swarmed with press. When BP offered to let one of them in, they said “all or none.”
As a general rule when proposed text does not badly violate various Wikipedia traditions...
There has been some useful commentary by editors about "soapboxing" and the supposition that accuratly covering details about an individual's, governmental agency's, or corporate entity's activities constitutes "soapboxing." I must disagree with this classification since Wikipedia is intended to be, well, encyclopedic, and provided details about someone's or something's behavior and activities (provided there are testable, falsifiable references and citations to support the information) is wholly appropriate.
Also Wikipedia rules and guidelines are intended to be guidelines which assist editors in providing a useful volunteer-created product used around the world, so even if discussing a living person's policies, practices, behaviors, and actions were to violate Wikiepdia traditions, when such information is accurate, referenced with testability, and the citations are solid, guidelines against covering truthful attributes of a living individual gain less weight than the desire for encyclopedic information.
Of course there is always motivations by editors to wish to avoid having information covered, either due to religious, political, ideological, or financial reasons. At the same time there are editors who wish to underscore certain behaviors and activities motivated by their own hobby-horses. Contention arises yet the resolving issue should be whether the proposed text being discussed has valid references to support them.
Also an editor who disagrees with proposed text should never just reverse an editor's text without explanation or without discussing it first. Everyone is a volunteer, after all, and we don't wanr rude behavior to stop very valuable editors from contributing to the project. Damotclese ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If our only source for what Ethecon actually does is a blog, how notable is this foundation? bobrayner ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)