Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→CBM (Charity): Reply |
||
Line 816:
::Hi [[User:Mean as custard]], this is not true. You can see from the number of characters that the text has been shortened by 10% - about 1000 characters less, so I did not "just reinstate it". In my opinion, these were promotional passages. Can you please be more specific in your feedback? That's not very constructive this way, sorry to say. I also compared the article with other NGOs, it's mostly exactly the same sections. 09:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Here are a few of the promotional phrases: "create a world where every person has equal opportunities and can live free from disease and poverty", "draws on its Christian values and over 100 years of professional expertise", "to realise its vision and fulfil its mission", "dedicated to improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities in the world's poorest communities", "strives to make a significant and sustainable impact on the lives of persons with disabilities, contributing to a more inclusive and equitable world for all", "reflects its commitment". . .[[User:Mean as custard|Mean as custard]] ([[User talk:Mean as custard#top|talk]]) 12:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::::How is describing the mandate and mission of a nonprofit organization promotional? After all, they have legal relevance and determine how an NGO MUST use its donations. Just some examples from other aproved wiki pages of other NGOs:
::::* Amnesty International: 'The stated mission of the organisation is to campaign for "a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights"'
::::* UNICEF: 'UNICEF's programs emphasize developing community-level services to promote the health and well-being of children.'
::::* WWF: 'WWF revised its mission statement to: Stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature (...)'
::::Every aid organisation works in accordance with its statutes, which is why its official mandate is not simply advertising – it is a legally binding framework. And as you can see, it is quite common on the Wikipedia pages of NGOs to describe their mandate and it is very relevant to the public. So why set such double standards in this case?
::::In addition, >90% of the content is a description of the historical foundation and prehistory. Wouldn't it be much more expedient to edit individual sentences or passages instead of simply rejecting everything across the board? [[Special:Contributions/2003:DF:6F1A:3000:B183:B128:A730:33|2003:DF:6F1A:3000:B183:B128:A730:33]] ([[User talk:2003:DF:6F1A:3000:B183:B128:A730:33|talk]]) 14:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||