Talk:Save Darfur Coalition

Explanation of changes
I'm with the Save Darfur Coalition and corrected the following inaccuracy and dated information

1. I changed "Western intervention" to "international intervention". We are advocating for the deployment of a U.N.-A.U. peacekeeping force for Darfur, which is far from "Western."

2. I updated our Unity statement. We adopted a new one this year.

3. I updated our list of board members to reflect current members —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdarfurcoal (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
I work for the Save Darfur Coalition and corrected the following factual inaccuracies in the entry:

1. We added a paragraph responding to the claim that the Save Darfur Coalition is "an initiative of the American Jewish community". While Jewish organizations were once the predominant force in the Coalition's membership, several organizations have since signed on that represent a broad section of civil society in the U.S. and abroad.

2. The Coalition no longer has an Executive Committee. We have therefore changed the Executive Committee to Board Members. A complete listing of Coalition members is available on request and will shortly be up on savedarfur.org.

3. We added an accomplishments section since the page, we believe, unfairly focuses on criticisms of the organization and says nothing about the benefits of our work.

4. We have also included some responses to the Criticism section that provide an inaccurate and biased view of our organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdarfurcoal (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsucessful
Isn't that last statement in the first paragraph, "To date, it has been unsuccessful" a bit subjective? I'm unfamiliar with the coalition and its progress (which is why I was here to read up on it in the first place), but I feel as if that statement isn't exactly conveying factual information, rather it is one editor's perception of things.
 * I agree. It seems more like an opinion than a factual statement. I don't want to delete it from the article in case the Coalition has actually claimed to be unsuccessful, but I think it's an odd thing to say. --Fez2005 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the Save Darfur Coalition and we certainly wouldn't object to removing that line, especially since it's unclear what we've been unsuccessful at. If the writer is suggesting that we've been unsuccessful at bringing peace to Darfur, yes, there's a lot more to be done. But if the writer is suggesting that we've been unsuccessful at our goal "to raise public awareness and to mobilize an effective united response to the atrocities," we certainly have been successful. Our work and the work of our coalition members and partners has kept the issue in the public eye when many world leaders wanted it to go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdarfurcoal (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions
Is anyone aware of the organization's position on military intervention? They state that they want a UN peacekeeping force sent to Darfur, but don't elaborate on what sort of mandate such a force should have. Consider that the Sudanese government has said that it will view any UN force sent to be a military invasion I would imagine it important for the Save Darfur Coalition to speak to this, but I've never heard anything from them on the subject. The answer to your question was included but it got edited out because suddenly Wikipedia doesn't consider the New York Times a source that can be referenced. A lot of questions exist about this organization but someone keeps coming in and editing the "Criticism" section.

I noticed that for some reason the valid arguements against this organization (Ron Paul)are buried at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.142.11 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Assisting you with critic
google Sara Flounders--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Advertisement" tone
Howdy! This is my first time addressing an "advertisement" flag. Please review my edit. Posting the group's entire "unity message" certainly seems to "promote the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." Would love to hear others' thoughts. PineTreeCamper (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)