Talk:Nonviolent Peaceforce

tags removed
I've added references (though it could use more, especially from outside the NVPF web universe), and so removed the unreferenced tag.

I've also done some rewriting to remove ad-speak, bur more needs to be done.--Natcase 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why add "no monetary return"?
In this change, the text "which provide no monetary return" was readded. The sentence already says it's alternative giving, which by definition provides no monetary return. What reason is there for adding this information in the referring article? &mdash; Sebastian 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're certainly right that a reader could get the full story by clicking the link, but it makes me uncomfortable to have text in this article that some readers will misunderstand. Before seeing this link, I would have thought that the phrase "alternative giving" might include, for example, a gift of income-producing property in which the donor retains the income during his or her lifetime, and the property reverts to the donee after the donor's death.  In other words, all the phrase suggests to me is that it's any form of giving other than a classical straightforward donation.


 * People who see the word "bond" will naturally think of an interest-bearing instrument. Some readers who think that won't click on the link.  I restored the information to save those readers from their own laziness.  The wikilinks should be to provide further information, not to correct misimpressions left by the article containing the link. JamesMLane t c 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, thanks! &mdash; Sebastian 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal negative feelings mingled in this article
Hi, while reading through this article accidentaly, I found several sentences to be out of tone. They seem to reflect personal negative experiences and they would probably find a better place in a seperate paragraph (eg criticisms) instead of randomly inserted throughout the article. As I am not familiar with this topic or it's criticisms, so I choose not to edit this myself. I want to emphasize that I make no moral judgement of the content. It is just weird to read the article in it's current form. I leave it up to the involved editors to do the needfull modifications.

example :

''NP was conceived by Mel Duncan and David Hartsough and other participants at the 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace and constituted in the 2002 Convening Event in Surajkund, India [1]. Hartsough allows his name to be used in fund raising efforts, '''but he would probably change his mind if he had the courage to investigate what the organization is really all about. It is a violent, phony organization that has never provided protection to anyone, and says whatever it needs to say to raise money.''' The goals and projects of the organisation have received endorsements from Nobel Laureates, peace activists, and communities of faith internationally. Following on Nonviolent Peaceforce's debut project in Sri Lanka, a second full deployment was launched on Mindanao island in the Philippines in April 2007.''

Nick.Persyn (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at past edits, this one seems to have removed the content mentioned above, along with a lot more. . A quick glance seems to confirm to me that all the content removal was correct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

POV tag added
Throughout this article there is an overreliance on the organisation's own claims together with a lack of neutral sources. Claims are stated as if they are automatically true rather than just being statements made by the organization. The lead is especially flawed in this aspect. The whole ordering of the article, with its subsection headings, is also suspect - it reads like an advertorial. Important information is missing. There is a complete absence of any detail about who finances the organization, a crucial absence given that this might reveal more of the organisation's aims. For the same reason financing info should be near the top of the article, not at its very bottom. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Tiptoethrutheminefield, get to work. I just blocked ; I don't know how many edits they made, but this article reads like the company brochure. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia makes me almost physically sick - or, to be more accurate, many of the editors I have had contact with do it. So, working on any editing depends on how resistant (or forgetful) I am to my revulsion of past encounters and fear of future ones. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)