Talk:Action Against Hunger

Revert to Adamore's version?
Background: User_talk:Adamore was allegedly advertising & link spamming for Action Against Hunger. His version 21:02, 29 December 2009 was reverted by User_talk:Hu12. Justin Ormont (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe User_talk:Adamore's contains much good information and should be reverted and edited for neutrality or at minimum reverted with a POV-checktag. Justin Ormont (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should not be reverted to Adamore's version because Wikipedia is not a website for promoting good causes. The issues mentioned by Adamore are deplorable, but an encyclopedic article on a relief and development organization is not the place to right the world's wrongs. Some of the points could be incorporated into the article, but neutral language needs to be used, and the article needs to focus on its topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Johnuniq that an encyclopedia is not a place to 'right the world's wrongs' but as you mention that the article needs to focus on the topic, well all i wrote about was what action against hunger is and what it does, i have not added anything else... so i don't understand how what i wrote does not stick to the topic of the article? I may not have written in a completely neutral language, ok, but that would be because this is a cause i care about. But I did stick to writing only about the organization called action against hunger, and have not added anything else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.231.124  (talk • contribs)  00:32, 2 January 2010 (sorry, I wrote the comment above; just realized that I had forgotten to sign in)
 * Adamore's version was more of a marketing/promotional piece instead of an encyclopedia article, and the fact that the majority of the content was self-referenced from actionagainsthunger.org instead of third-party reliable sources just compounded the problem of that version being promotional in nature. Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, with reliable sources, and to be focused on the topic, not on every side topic with which the subject works.  Articles are also not the place for listed all staff in a leadership role within the company, nor should it contain a linkfarm of every website associated to the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Barek, if it looks like a promotional piece, I'm sorry; that was not my intention. All I tried to do was to fully update the information about this organization by following the example of other organizations (i looked at what the wikipedia pages of other organizations look like and followed a similar example). Sure I may have placed too many links back to the organization's website, but there the intention was just to reference what I wrote. I tried to add links to other websites (as I did put some), but not everything I wrote could be referenced to another website... This is the first time that I make major edits to a page; I have updated wikipedia pages before, but only small edits... — Adamore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Some proposed changes
Robert0382 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Information to be removed: "As a result, the global mortality rate of severely malnourished children under the age of five has been reduced from 25% to 5%"
 * Information to be inserted instead: "Early results showed that treatment with F100 has the capacity to reduce the mortality rate of severely malnourished children to below 5%, while the existing median hospital fatality rate at the time was 23.5%"
 * Explanation of issue: It is not correct to state that the global mortality rate for severe malnutrition in children has been reduced to 5%. The article cited under this statistic refers to early results using F100 therapeutic milk formula but the mortality rate appears to remain much higher in developing countries even in hospitals. Research in the Archives of Disease in Childhood suggests that higher mortality rates result from insufficient staff numbers and inadequate resources, training and/or conditions in health systems in the developing world. An article published in 2009 in the Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition confirms however that a 5% case fatality rate (CFR) is certainly not unfeasible- WHO considers a 5% CFR to be 'Moderate', under 5% to be 'Good' and under 1% Excellent.
 * References supporting change: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083726/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761803/

Reply 01-OCT-2019
Regards, Spintendo  21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While the COI editor has made a declaration of a conflict of interest on their user page, they have not made the requisite financial disclosures.
 * If the COI editor receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer and/or client in order to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing.

Some proposed changes
Robert0382 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Information to be removed: "As a result, the global mortality rate of severely malnourished children under the age of five has been reduced from 25% to 5%"
 * Information to be inserted instead: "Early results showed that treatment with F100 has the capacity to reduce the mortality rate of severely malnourished children to below 5%, with a median hospital fatality rate quoted of 23.5%"
 * Explanation of issue: It is not correct to state that the global mortality rate for severe malnutrition in children has been reduced to 5%. The article cited under this statistic refers to early results using F100 therapeutic milk formula but the mortality rate appears to remain much higher in developing countries even in hospitals. Research in the Archives of Disease in Childhood suggests that higher mortality rates result from insufficient staff numbers and inadequate resources, training and/or conditions in health systems in the developing world. An article published in 2009 in the Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition confirms however that a 5% case fatality rate (CFR) is certainly not infeasible- WHO considers a 5% CFR to be 'Moderate', under 5% to be 'Good' and under 1% Excellent.
 * References supporting change: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083726/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761803/
 * Explanation of COI: There is no financial conflict of interest. I volunteered to do a sponsored walk this year and last year, for the charity's community fundraising and also to submit some writing to the charity. I have referred potential sponsors- family and friends- to the Wikipedia page, and recently highlighted my proposed change. I am not paid by the charity either to edit Wikipedia or in any other respect. I am an ad hoc donor to the charity.
 * Thank you for your reply. Two sponsored walks and submitting writing to the charity (inasmuch as charities even accept written material from individuals participating in sponsored walks — do you mean like an application form?) would not constitute a conflict of interest. By that definition, a person who shops every two weeks at Costco (and thus, has a more frequent relationship) would have more of a COI than you would with this charity, and would therefore be theoretically unable to edit the Costco page. And yet, Costco shoppers are not prevented from editing that article. Those types of casual relationships and patronships that people have with businesses everyday do not rise to the level of COI. In any event, this appears to be a correction of incorrect material, which may fall under WP:COIU. If you make this change, please be sure to add the passages of text from the journal articles which verify the changes you are making. You may use the quote parameter of the template to accomplish this. As both of these journal articles are, that shouldn't be a problem quoting the text. Regards,  Spintendo  19:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)