Talk:Action Against Hunger

Revert to User: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 version 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...