Talk:Oxfam/Archive 1

Work in the UN?
So, what does Oxfam do in the UN? They're a NGO there, IIRC... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.162.104 (talk • contribs) 09:56, October 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Name "Oxfam"
The committee changed its name to its telegraph address, OXFAM, in 1965.

This is worth verifying. I have here two books of postage stamps from the 1960s, one of which carries an advert for OXFAM, dated November 1964. The other, dated September 1963, is bylined "Oxford Committee for Famine Relief" but uses the term "Oxfam" in the body copy -- so clearly the name Oxfam was already in use in 1963 if not before. Flapdragon 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * says that the name was in use before that, but wasn't adopted officially until 1965. --Batneil 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to put this, but here goes. The first line of the article reads... "Oxfam International is an international confederation of 13 independent non-governmental dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world" It seems to me that there is a word missing between governmental and dedicated. I'm not sure what it should be, or else i would have just fixed it. Help?


 * I've added the word 'organisations' because that seems to fit, and it's what was there a few edits ago. --Batneil 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising costs
Looking at the repeated claims by the anon IP 86.130.68.75, I think the best thing is to look up the numbers. Oxfam's 2004/05 budget details gives a total fundraising costs of 18.5 million pounds, with a net income of 154.2 million. In 2003/04 it was 18.9 million pounds and a net income of 93.2 million pounds Oxfam annual reports. This does not appear to support the claims made. Average Earthman 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

'Criticism'
Hi, I've deleted the 'criticism' section since there was no evidence that: The requests for citations have been there for some time, but nothing has been provided. Please reference any claims along these lines. Thanks. Breadandroses 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There actually is any criticism at all along the lines suggested, let alone any substantial body of such.
 * The criticisms are even remotely sensible, and to do with actual facts (as opposed to just being slurs).


 * This is odd. Actually anyone who reads the alternative sites/press or even the main newspapers in the UK for example would be very aware that Oxfam has been fiercely critiqued on a number of fronts, both by radicals, particularly for it's recent support for the Make Poverty History campaign after it became identified with Blair/Brown and for example on free trade. See for example 1, and by the right, for example for posing as a charity whilst being very political. Like many NGOs there are complicated issues here and a free ride on Wikipedia gives the wrong impression. MarkThomas 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and include any relevant criticism in a verifiable way, your entry based on reputable sources, including these sources. --LucVerhelst 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--

I've added a new criticism section. It's sourced, and focuses on the recent Oxfam vs. Starbucks. Feel free to add to it and/or make it better, but please don't delete it just because you like Oxfam. CarolinianJeff 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)CarolinianJeff

I must say I am surprised .No one has, to my knowledge, spoken to the obvious left wing focus in the name of winning a war on private property.This is an agenda driven organization.Either way.Do not blindly accept the "truth". Do the research first.Think for yourself!

Possible error on Date
Oxfam International, founded in 1995 I think it is false. See http://www.oxfam.org.uk/about_us/history/index.htm --Youssef 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link gives the dates for Oxfam United Kingdom, the article is about Oxfam International. That international organisation was only established in 1995. Before this date, there was no common organisation for the different national Oxfams.
 * Thanks for the input/attention, though ! --LucVerhelst 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. My mistake. Thanks for your comment.--Youssef 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem.
 * Actually, you're pointing to a weakness in the article. You're probably not the only one who got confused. I think it would be a good thing if it were clarified. --LucVerhelst 20:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Oxfam International
I'd like to propose a move for this article to Oxfam International.

Next to that we could create a new, small Oxfam article, that gives an overview of both Oxfam International and the 12 local organisations.

I believe this would clarify things.

What do you think ?

We could start with this text : (I copied it mostly from the present article.)
 * Oxfam is the name of a number independent, non-profit, secular, community-based aid and development organizations who work with local partners in over 100 countries worldwide to reduce poverty, suffering, and injustice.


 * ==National organisations==
 * The twelve national Oxfam organizations are based in: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Quebec, Spain and the United States.
 * ==Oxfam International==
 * There is a small Oxfam International secretariat, based in Oxford, UK, and the secretariat runs advocacy offices in Washington, D.C, New York, Brussels and Geneva.

--LucVerhelst 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mishmash between Oxfam in Great Britain (Oxfam GB), the umbrella organisation for different Oxfams across the world (Oxfam International) and all the Oxfams together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.29.116 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxfam category
It might be an idea to create an Oxfam category to tie together things like Oxfam Australia, Walk Against Want, Oxfam bookshops and Trailwalker. Any thoughts? --Nydas 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm rather sympathetic towards that idea.
 * But I think you are going to encounter some resistance, because of the wild growth of categories. It would help if other inter- and multinational organisations also had a category of their own, but I don't seem to find any.
 * Would we reach the same result with a list ?
 * What category would you make Category:Oxfam a subcategory of ? --LucVerhelst 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The sorting of all these categories looks a little strange; Oxfam is more than just a Development Charity for example - it is frequently labelled an NGO, but on WP we have DC's as a subcategory of NGOs. All part of the rich random fabric of the Great Edit in the Sky. :-) Is there anything to stop us putting Oxfam directly in the category NGO? MarkThomas 20:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have a category than a list: what would the list's title be? Having said that, the subcategory could be problematic. But why not just stick the category where Oxfam is now? --Nydas 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already been bold and directly linked Oxfam Australia (from which I’d linked the click-to-donate site Ripple), Oxfam Canada, and Oxfam Hong Kong from Oxfam's "see also" list. I, too, would like to see the various local and international articles connected in one way or another. --Kletta (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

History
The official version of Oxfam's history on their site 1 sounds a bit different to the way it's written here; it emphasises for example the role of the well known Greek scholar Gilbert Murray and does not specifically mention Quaker involvement. I have heard before that the Quaker thing is overblown.


 * "Among its founding members were Canon T R Milford of the University Church and Professor Gilbert Murray, a member of the national Committee and former Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford. The commitment of Cecil Jackson-Cole, a London businessman appointed Honorary Secretary in December 1942, drove the Committee’s work for many years. "

The first meeeting of the Committee was held at the Friends Meeting House in St Giles, Oxford. Quaker properties are often used for meetings by diverse liberal or progressive groups, but nonetheless the link is there. The original minutes of that meeting, hand written in a lined school notebook, still exist and are held by the Oxfam UK archive. It should be possible to establish, from the named attendees and apologies, how many of the original interested parties had Quaker connections. Oz naughten 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting, yes. But the results of such a research could off course only be used on Wikipedia after they had been published in a reputable source first. See WP:OR. --LucVerhelst 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
On 26 January 2007 anonymous editor 193.133.69.201 deleted the entire Criticism section without an Edit Summary note or any comment about this major deletion. What's going on here? The criticisms, whether one agrees or not, were well sourced. Dwalls 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 23 feb - reinstated criticism section

Except that the footnoted references didn't come through. Can anyone fix this? Dwalls 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i dunno - the refs seem to be in teh text when you try and edit it - but not on the page.....anyone any idea?

It doesn't seem right to include under 'Criticism' Oxfam effort to have the next World Bank President appointed on merit, rather than hand-picked by George Bush. I propose to move that paragraph to another section. Any ideas? Bolocholo 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I don't see how it is even really relevant to the article. Including every such Oxfam effort in such detail would make the article way too long.

Criticism section - unclear sentence
The sentence:

''The academics claimed that high certification costs and low wages for workers undermine claims that Fairtrade helps to lift producers out of poverty. These claims were subsequently dismissed.''

is unclear. What claims were dismissed? The claims by the academics, or the claims that Fairtrade helps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Added advert template
I've added the advert template as in it's current form (June, 2007), the article appears overtly concerned with detailing Oxfam's mission and beliefs rather than objective facts about the organisation, which is what Wikipedia article's on organisations are meant to be focused on.
 * WHAT their mission consists of IS an objective fact, and being clear about what their mission consists in is EXACTLY the thing that Wikipedia is meant to be focussed on.Paul haynes (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentance "Oxfam believes that poverty and powerlessness are avoidable and can be eliminated by human action and political will." is extremely POV orientated and must be changed. While I'm sure Oxfam does have noble objectives, Wikipedia articles' need to distance themselves from being overtly focused from the organisation in question's point of view otherwise objective credibility is lost. The "mission and objectives" section in particular should be removed and replaced with a summary appearing in the article's introduction as is usual for an organisation's stated mission.

Criticism section - large and discouraged
This looks like a really nice article - well done everyone for all your work. Just one comment - the criticism section does look rather large for the article (see WP:NPOV). Also, criticism sections are discouraged - see WP:CRITICISM; it's recommended to merge each individual criticism/issue into the article in its own space, where it can get neutral coverage of the good points too.

Many thanks, and well done on the article, Drum guy (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

17 Broad Street
Is this shop still in existence? Might be of worth to note it, unless I've missed it somewhere. There's definitely still an Oxfam shop in Broad Street, Oxford, but I don't know if it's the original. 86.152.175.116 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies?
Can anyone explain why organisations like Oxfam and Global Giving are loaded on Wikipedia. Is this not promoting any organisation and against Wikipedia ruling?. I've been trying to load a similar organisation, in fact it is also a NPO within the same category as Oxfam and Global Giving, but this gets rejected each time. Any comments? Experience the gift (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Progreso
I was wondering should Progreso be included here? If so where? --Abdulha (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Abdulha

NGO Monitor criticism
The only references for the item about the anti-Israel poster are from the NGO Monitor, which is NPOV. -- leuce (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What proportion of a donation gets to the 3rd world?
How much would be spent on admin or advertising? I accept that both these things may be beneficial in the long run. 78.149.186.253 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Accounts available online
Oxfam UK's accounts can be seen here. At page 55 is a list - "The values of grants received by Oxfam from other Oxfams in 2009/10 are listed below." This includes grants from Ireland - about £2.5m in y.e. 2010 and  £3.2m in 2009. Looking at the Irish accounts here, the £2.5m amount is described on page 32 as - "..our [the Irish] fundraising department contributing net income of €2.8m/£2.5m to our charitable activities...". Where does "our" begin and end? I'm not criticizing, just curious - the article might have a para on this to explain to potential donors.86.42.207.254 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger Oxfam Novib
Several reasons:


 * 1) Shows that Oxfam International is large outside UK and the commonwealth (Now only GB and Canada chapters out of 14 explained)
 * 2) Novib is an old organisation (1956) that fits well within the consolidation (became part of Oxfam in 1994) in international aid
 * 3) Oxfam Novib article itself is a stub, shorter than Oxfam Canada section in this article, so it would not unduly affect this article. Arnoutf (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that Oxfam Novib should be merged with Oxfam - this is because, as an international federation, it is sensible that there are separate wiki pages for each national organisation. Each national Oxfam has a different history, different priorities, different websites. It makes no sense to try and cover them centrally because of the large differences between each country. There are separate pages for Oxfam Australia, Oxfam Canada. Yes Oxfam Novib is a stub, but this should be addressed by expanding it. - Drstuey (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Budget
"Finance: Contributions from affiliate organizations. Operating budget: US$8.7m" - This page http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oxfam-international-annual-report-2009-2010.pdf claims something Completely different (see section: "Where we work Program expenditure 2008-09") SHIMONSHA (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

International Affiliates
Is there a way that this section could be compressed or removed? Maybe move to a separate article. At the moment, it feels more list a list that detracts from the main purpose of the article. Also feel like the activities section was probably just copy pasted from the website, so if anyone has objections, will either compress this or removed. Shaded0 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

External pressures (political,econonical,social and technological) influencing the Organisation:please contribute
Flophy (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the 2011/2012 Annual Report 37% of Oxfam's total funding came from national and supranational organisations - apart from the UN which contributed about 5% of the total these are almost entirely the EU and 'home countries' and their government institutions. The phrase 'home countries' is never defined but presumably means the governments of countries where Oxfam has organisational structures. Apart from India and Hong Kong these are the US and EU governments or other US allies such as Canada and Australia. Receiving so much of its funding - about a third of the total - from these sources creates a potentially huge conflict of interest. This possible conflict should be borne in mind when examining Oxfams spheres of activity and in particular reports and comments emanating from the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuross (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Oxfam Novib be merged into Oxfam. I think that the content in the Oxfam Novib article can easily be explained in the context of Oxfam. Currently the Oxfam Novib article contains identical text to the Oxfam Novib section in the Oxfam article. So I can't see that the merging of Oxfam Novib will cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Lopifalko (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxfam.
Are oxfam a private or public limited company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.62.16 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

too far the other way
I'm not sure what the article looked like before, but now it seems to emphasise problems more than explaining what the organisation actually does, an obvious example of POV by omission/emphasis. I think the mission and objectives should be stated more clearly, though avoiding the ''Oxfam believes that poverty and powerlessness are avoidable..." style, as mentioned above. I know little about Oxfam and wasn't made much wiser, in fact, the best thing about the page is its links, which is not a compliment. Paul haynes (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That credal statement "Oxfam believes that ...": I don't see why it should be deleted. Judging, e.g., by its 2011-2012 Annual report, it seems that Oxfam differs from other (all? most?) NGOs in having as its goal, and systematically planning for, not merely immediate relief of hunger etc. but elimination of the various "root" causes of poverty. This information is important. Svato (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Inequitable Even After Below Suggestion
If 85 ppl own 50percent of worlds wealth, then the top 1percent which is 80 million people likely own 99percent of the worlds wealth. That's 1 million more people that are 1percent. Vote for people who will distribute unused state and and abolish taxes for the poor and middle classes and the 1percent woul still be owning 99percentof the worlds wealth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.169.76 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowlan case
I changed this to improve accuracy and balance. I am sure defendants are not required to pay the costs when an injunction is sought against them. Especially when the matter has not even gone to a hearing. --Mujokan (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Should Oxfam Reports Be Added To The Article - Or Not?
Should the following text/refs re Oxfam Reports be included in the article - or not? If so, which location in the article would be most appropriate?  A January 2014 report by Oxfam claimed that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people. More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.

Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For context, Drbogdan added this content to the lede and I moved it to "Oxfam's work". That seemed like the most obvious place for it, but it could use more context than just "Oxfam put out a press release that specified a number" without even saying whether they think this is a good thing or a bad thing. --McGeddon (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - and your efforts with this - I had considered the section that you had added the material originally - but wasn't sure, at the time, this would have been the best location - seems this was the better location after all - Thanks again for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also the section Oxfam, which is a bit awkward. Maybe it could be merged with the section Oxfam, and notable reports should be mentioned in a relevant paragraph there? --filip (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Languages of Oxfam International
The previous version claimed Oxfam International's official language to be English, and the working languages to be English, French and Spanish. I'd say it's the other way round: The website is in all three lanugages, which suggests these are the "official languages" (as in used for communications with the public). And I found a reference for the Board's working language to be English. I changed the article accordingly. --filip (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Spain
I see no mention of Oxfam Intermón. --Error (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oxfam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release17Dec09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oxfam International and wealth
Every year since 2011 Oxfam International has published spurious statics about wealth inequality. And every year those who can recognise the false use of numbers have rebutted (not just refuted) those figures.

I, as someone with no debt and modest savings, probably have more wealth than most Westerners with a mortgage. Should this silliness be given room here?

This is an interesting BBC Radio 4 programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03gj7h9

Cannonmc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannonmc (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed two old books from further reading section
I've removed these two old books from the further reading section. If anyone thinks they are very important, ensure they get cited in the history section:


 * . EMsmile (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . EMsmile (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Oxfam's position on migration to Europe
User:AadaamS, I disagree that this sentence has been added under mission and values: "Oxfam International advocates for higher migration to Europe.[3]" Maybe it can be added elsewhere in this article but to add it under mission implies that Oxfam is actively advocating for this and it is their policy. If that was the case then you should be citing a publication by Oxfam, not this piece by Foreign Policy which is not even open access (as I don't want to register for them I cannot even read and check in which context this statement might appear in that piece). So I think this should be clarified, moved to elsewhere in the article and a better reference found. It might fit under Oxfam's work or activities. I doubt that they have made it a prime mission to have unlimited migration to Europe (which is what the sentence at present seems to imply!). EMsmile (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Has Oxfam ever advocated stricter migration rules? Thanks, Oxfam has a search engine on their page and it's quite useful to find sources. AadaamS (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Budget
I see no mention of Oxfam's budget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.78.249.234 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Make 1. rape and 2. assault section (supposedly mere allegations)
somehow you've to pay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8888:3A00:A10A:46B7:5026:A29A (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart and Regavim
Wow, I had no idea breitbart.com was a reputable source on international law. Or Regavim for that matter? Is there any reason this nonsense should remain in an encyclopedia article?  nableezy  - 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Trish pt7 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No worse than CNN or BBC. Both pro establishment propaganda.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.122.202 (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

OXFAM manufactured signs a fixture at communist rallies.
This may be of relevance, but recently OXFAM placards are showing up in force at Marxist aligned, anti-free speech, and anti-American rallies around the world. I haven't seen any news coverage of it, but you can't miss them; does OXFAM have a stance on this? One of the reasons I used to donate to them is I thought independent meant they weren't a political organisation, but it appears they are very political from the prevalence of their signage made for certain events, including the anti-Trump protests in London the other day too. Might be worth checking if they've announced anything. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable published source before we can even begin discussing whether this is important to the article. So bring such a source to the table and we may start a content discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Director's Salaries
I have searched the article but I cannot find the director's salaries. This also seems to be absent from Oxfam's own site. Please would someone knowledgeable add this information ? Darkman101 (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have protected the page for 12 hours. --Bduke (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)