Talk:David Suzuki Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vancouver (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is not specific to any one area of Vancouver.
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clean-up, Clarifications, Deletions[edit]

As I've just made several changes, I thought it best to provide the reasoning behind the edits:

1) I've removed a great many redundant hyperlinks.

2) I've restored the second paragraph in the Nature Challenge section - removed without comment.

3) I have corrected the comment made on the John Oakley Show concerning corporate donations (and have provided a reference).

4) I have removed information concerning donations made by the OPG Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust as it is not a corporation and is off-topic.

5) As blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources" (see WP:V#SELF), I have removed as a reference, replacing it with the Annual Report in question.Victoriagirl 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of donations[edit]

I am moving this section here, for discussion. The content of the section is as follows:

During an interview on the John Oakley Show in Toronto, Suzuki stated that corporations had not been interested in funding the foundation.[1] However, the foundation's 2005-2006 annual report lists 52 corporations, including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Bros., RBC, Canon and the Bank of Montreal, amongst its 40,000 donors.
Other corporate donors include EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, and ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas.[2]

My concern is that this constitutes original research. In other words, the editor who added this has drawn personal conclusions, rather than those of a reliable source. The support for the foundation is very broad (40,000 donors). We have no idea how much money has been provided by corporations. Suzuki says that they have not been interested in funding the Foundation. That logically implies that corporate funding is a relatively small percentage of the total. Who are we to argue? Unless we can find a citation that states that corporations provide a significant portion of funding for the Foundation, I don't see how we can use this. Sunray 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Dear Sunray. The section which you repeatedly delete constitutes not original research but official info which can be easily checked on web-sites of CFMJ and DSF. The statement "who we are to argue" doesn't seem to be appropriate in context of the section editing: there's not a word of argument, opinion or interpretation in the section, just bare facts. If there's a concern of percentage of the funding, it would be logical to add "the ammount of the corporate donation to DSF is not known", not delete the information informing that such donations has been done.

Taking into account the following statement at About Me section of your page:

"Some people I know are working at creating alternatives that don't depend on petroleum"

With all due respect I see your position as possibly biased, and your actions as a possible attemt to cover unconvenient information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sunray only removed the section once. It was I who repeatedly deleted the section. Although I maintain that there has not been sufficient discussion, I do not want to enter into an edit war over this matter. That said, I have recently performed an edit which brings things more into line with Wkipedia's policies and guidelines., I'm afraid I can't see how your version might be considered more neutral - perhaps you could elaborate. Again, welcome... and don't forget to asume good faith. Victoriagirl 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the new name of the section (Criticism) and reference to the actual criticism give wider picture of the situation. But if you don't find these changes neutral, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Victoriagirl's addition makes the section more neutral. However, I am again removing the section, because I believe it is original research. Before you put it back,, would you be able to do two things, please?
1) Read the policy on original research. You are not quoting from a primary source that counters what David Suzuki says about funding. You are gleaning facts from the Suzuki Foundations' annual report. That is original research. If you look at the section of the policy on "What is included?" you will find a list of edits that count as original research. One of these is the following:
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
2) Find a reliable source that makes the conclusion you want to make.
As to the question of bias on my part, I take WP:NPOV seriously, as I hope you will. Sunray 02:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read policy on original research and can't see absolutely nothiing in the section that represents original research. Would you please specify which part of the section you consider the original research and on what part of original research definition your conclusion is based? I would especially appreciate if you show me any analysis of the facts mentioned in the section. Why wouldn't you call "original research" any facts that are listed in the previous sections? What in your opinion differs the facts in the last section from the facts in the other sections of the article? I'd appreciate if you answer this questions before deleting the facts you apparently do not like.

Original source where Suzuki says about funding is right there, in the audio file from the radio station website. Suzuki says it there himself. There's a reference.

No conclusions are made in this section. If you think otherwise, please cite the conclusion you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I might have been clearer on the original research aspect of this. Essentially you have been trying to discredit Suzuki. However, now you have introduced a source, so lets deal with that, right away. In my second request, above, I asked you to find a reliable source. The policy that governs this is WP:Verifiability. The policy states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..."
You are the editor who added (and now is attempting to restore) this material and I am challenging it. The policy defines reliable sources in the following way:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
The source you have produced does not meet this description.
If you are willing to work within Wikipedia policy, I am willing to work with you to try to produce a properly sourced, neutral description about the foundations' funding. However, I haven't seen a reliable source that states what you are trying to say. You will need to get consensus on this addition to the article before reinserting it. To continue to reinsert this material is little more than vandalism. Sunray 10:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we continue, could you please answer two questions:

1. Which of the three sources do you find unreliable? The page of Institute for Canadian Values where you can find Be-Ami criticism of Suzuki, the page of 640Toronto radio station where you can hear Suzuki claim made by himself or the page of David Suzuki Foundation where you can find the list of sponsors?

2. What unreliable do you find in this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Institute for Canadian Values website[1] does not meet any element of the description of reliable sources above. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, a magazine, journal or book published by a respected publishing house or a mainstream newspaper. Ben-Ami's "Commentary" piece has no editorial oversight, and is therefore a questionable source. The source doesn't present any information on the actual level of corporate funding of the Suzuki Foundation that is not present in the Foundation's own annual report. Thus there is no research or analysis to support its claims.
The David Suzuki Foundation Annual Report is not a primary source for the argument you are making, because it says nothing about the level of contribution of corporations. You (and Ben-Ami) have identified 52 corporations out of its 40,000 (forty thousand) donors. The number of corporate donors is therefore relatively few, and the report doesn't give the dollar amounts of the funding. Thus the Foundation source does not support your argument.
The radio clip is a direct quote from Suzuki and is thus a reliable source. He says corporations have not been interested in funding the foundation. You need a reliable source that disputes this. Is this clear? Sunray 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Institute is as real as David Suzuki Foundation. It's Executive Director is a real person too, so there's no reasons to doubt the accuracy of his words on the page of the Institute he leads.

Annual report is an original document of DSF. The words refer not to the amount of corporate support but to the fact of it's existence, so I believe the report of DSF is the primary source of the names of the donors.

All you say about the amount is your speculations and your original research and doesn't apply to the sections.

Are any there facts in the section you believe are wrong? If so, point to it. Anything else is just your speculations. And we report facts there, not opinions or speculations. If you are not happy with the facts, you better add another facts, not delete the facts that you don't like. Deleting inconvenient information is vandalism and censoring.

I'm asking you once again: are there any facts in the section you believe are wrong? Try not to speculate about it, just name a wrong information in a couple of words.

You have completely missed my point. It is not a question as to whether the Institute for Canadian Values is real or not. It has nothing to do with the idea that it and the Suzuki Foundation are both, in some folks minds, "think tanks." We are talking about reliable sources and what constitutes original research.
Example: Let's say I think that David Suzuki is a charlatan. I hear him say something that I think questionable. I find a report that shows some facts that might be evidence supporting what I think. I then find someone at a think tank with the same view. I write it up referring to the report and citing a column by one of the contributors of the think tank. Does this meet Wikipedia policy? I suggest to you that it does not. Why? It is original research because I had to draw a conclusion based on the report. The citation I used was not from a reliable source and likewise drew a conclusion (based on an assumption) rather than analyzing the facts. This is exactly why these policies exist. Wikipedia is not able to get into speculation or innuendo based on half-baked assumptions. That is why the policy on verifiability states: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Are there facts in what you have said that I believe are wrong? Yes there are. The tape of Suzuki says that corporations have not been interested in funding the Foundation. That is a relative statement. He doesn't say that no corporation has donated to it. To refute his statement we must either have a published analysis of the proportion of corporate funding of, or corporate interest in, the Suzuki Foundation, or a reliable source that questions Suzuki's statement. You have not come up with any source that examines the level of corporate funding or interest in the Foundation. What you have done is produce a questionable source that supports your point of view. It is still original research. Sunray 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's say I think that David Suzuki is a charlatan. I hear him say something that I think questionable. I find a report that shows some facts that might be evidence supporting what I think. I then find someone at a think tank with the same view.

Ехcuse me, but your are going too far. Or the next thing you would say would be I wrote to Ben-Ami and urged him to criticize Suzuki? You're trying to read my mind and "recreate" my actions. If you continue the discussion along these lines it wouldn't lead anywhere. So try to be reasonable. You can check it out in history - I didn't write the section. Actually, I've been doing a research on Suzuki, and went across the article in the Wikipedia. Then the next time I visited it the critical section wasn't there. Because I don't like censoring, either from right or from the left, I've undeleted it.

Now, there're two statements in the section.

1. Suzuki said that companies are not interested in sponsoring his foundation and it's funded by original people. That statement can be checked at the original source - the radio

2 a) Executive director of an established organization states that companies support Suzuki Foundation. That fact that a public person said it can be checked at the original source - the Institute

2 b) Finally we can check that his statement is true on the site of Suzuki foundation.

The section has two statements and they all are supported by reliable sources. The section doesn't say whether corporate donations were substantial or not. It's just your insinuations.

Now, if you like Suzuki so much that you aim is to hush any criticism, then the discussion is futile and we should apply to Wikipedia administration to settle this matter.

But if you want to get the section in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say, - then help me to find a wording and references that would make this section suitable for all people, either they adore Suzuki or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not getting anywhere. You have avoided responding to the concerns I've raised. I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with citations and sources. I've tried to explain in several different ways, but to no effect. You completely misunderstood my example. I was trying to put it in the simplest of terms. However, rather than consider my points you have engaged in personal attacks, making statements about my possible bias and implying that my regard for David Suzuki somehow impedes my ability as an editor. If you wish to get a user account and try to learn and follow Wikipedia policies, fine. Otherwise, there is not much more I can do. Sunray 02:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. And I'm trying to edit the section in question to everybody's content. You're just keeping deleting it. If you really has a concern about that article, please make some suggestions how to improve the section in question, not just how to get rid of it. Are you ready to work on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Here are some that we can use as a guide to decisions on this section:
  1. In an article about a particular subject, editors do not attack the subject. Our goal is to throw light on various subjects by writing about them from a neutral point of view.
  2. If the subject, or a representative of the subject, says X, editors themselves do not contradict it. If they have a reliable source that disputes the matter (Y) they cite that source.
  3. If challenged on a source, an editor attempts to verify the source or find another, better source (Z).
  4. If the first editor still thinks that the source (Y) is valid, s/he looks for consensus on the talk page. Editorial decisions are made by consensus.
  5. If, after discussion, the only agreed upon reliable source is X, we simply cannot make a statement to the contrary.
In my view, in the absence of consensus for your version, you will have to abandon it and move on. Sunray 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point it to you once again, that it's not my version. I haven't added it to the article. But I believe it should be there because criticism of David Suzuki Foundation being hypocrite in relation to donations policy exists, and it's rather wide.

If your only interest is in removing this criticism from the article, I would ask administrators to exclude us both from the editing process and assign a team of independent editors to resolve this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works, in my experience. Article decisions are made by a consensus of editors on the talk page. It is not that I am against criticism. Criticism from reliable sources improves the quality of articles, IMO. There is no particular reason to remove any editor from a discussion, providing they are following WP policies. You have made several accusations and insinuations that my alleged biases interfere with my ability to edit this article. I am perfectly aware of my biases and, in the time I've been editing Wikipedia, have never been accused of pushing a particular POV. Sunray 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you a simle question: are you willing to work to improve this section or you just want to remove it? Would you please answer it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am always willing to work to improve Wikipedia. So far we have not found a reliable source for what you want to say. I've outlined the policies. Now you either need to either: a) convince other editors that the source you have is reliable (preferably referring to the relevant policies), or b) find another source. It would be nice if other editors could comment on this discussion. Sunray 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement. Some consensus at last. I'm placing a request for comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've refrained from participating much in this conversation for the simple fact that Sunray has raised concerns I'd not considered about a section to which I had contributed numerous times during these past seven months. Through following the discussion, the issue has become more clear. What follow are my concerns concerning the section currently locked in place:
  1. The section title, "List of donors", has been replaced by "Criticism". I question the reduced status as "List of donors" is the only subsection of the "Criticism" section. I will add that the only source of criticism cited is Joseph C. Ben-Ami, the executive diretor of a think tank.
  2. Suzuki's statement to John Oakey that "the foundation gets its money from ordinary people. We do not get government money. Corporations have not been interested in funding us", is very much open to interpretation. I note he made no claim that the David Suzuki Foundation receives no money from corporate donors, rather that they "have not been interested in funding us". One can cite the very same facts employed by Ben-Ami to draw an opinion opposite to that which he puts forth - at 52, corporations amount to little more than 0.001 percent of all donors. Ben-Ami’s criticism is based on his interpretation that Suzuki was claiming the foundation had no corporate donors, when in fact he said no such thing.
  3. I don’t consider the Institute for Canadian Values as a source meeting Wikipedia’s policy concerning reliable sources., you state that the section should be included as it indicates the foundations’ hypocrisy vis-à-vis its donations policy. I suggest a reconsideration. The foundation has no policy against accepting corporate donations.
Finally, In the interests of fairness and transparency:, you indicated an intention to place a request for comment. As one such request was subsequently placed by Vryadly, would I be correct in my belief that you and Vryadly are one in the same? Would you be so kind as to clarify one way or another? On a somewhat related note, to accuse another user of bias, suppressing inconvenient information, edits that were made by another, deleting facts he does not like, censorship, and suppressing criticism runs counter to Wikipedia’s policy… and I’ll again point to guidelines concerning assuming good faith. Victoriagirl 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Victoriagirl,
It's not helpful to start the discussion with misinterpretation of my words. I've never said that "the section should be included as it indicates the foundations’ hypocrisy vis-à-vis its donations policy." I've said that the section should be included as it describes existing accusations of hypocrisy aimed at Suzuki. Don't you see the difference?
I'd ask you to try to refrain from this discussing for some time, at least until there are some new people in it. I think me and Sunray should refrain from it as well. I don't know your motives and don't want to guess it, but you have some record in deleting this section and from this record your position on it is clear enough. Moreover your suggestion to reconsider clearly contradicts your previous statement that you don't have such a position. Please don't misinterpret me again - I don't say you're Suzuki supporter or anything like that. But, let it be for purely editorial reasons, you clearly don't want this section to be there. So, because positions of us three are clear enough, I think it would be useful to get positions of people new to the article, because otherwise this discussion is going to go for ages.
This said, you of course are free to contribute to the discussion if you think I'm wrong.
Yes, Vryadly is me. It seems that the discussion is going to be rather long, so I've decided to create an account.
BTW, thank you for the valid reference you've provided to the Suzuki article. I'd like to notice though, that by criteria cited here by Sunray: (::In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.) this references would never be considered reliable. Moreover, most of the content of this article wouldn't be considered reliable, because most of the content is taken from web-site of DSF or from other DSF publications, and it's not a reliable source according to the criteria cited by Sunray. I, myself, don't think that all references in Wikipedia should be only from "the most reliable" sources, otherwise we'd have to delete most of the articles. Just reliable sources are OK with me. But let's be consistent and apply to ourselves the same criteria we apply to others.
Anyways, I'd like to ask you once again to let some new people have their say. The positions of us three are quite clear without being getting involved in further futile discussion with each other. Of course, it's not a guideline, just a personal request. Vryadly 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll begin by apologizing for what appears to be a misrepresentation of your words. While I am loath to quote from the post of another user, I do so here for the sake of clarity: "...I believe it should be there because criticism of David Suzuki Foundation being hypocrite in relation to donations policy exists, and it's rather wide." I took this to mean that you considered the section indicates that the foundation is being hypocritical regarding its donations policy. I see I am wrong. That said, I do note that you were refering to the donation policies of the David Suzuki Foundation, not Suzuki himself (as you've just stated). May I ask to which policies you are referring. The section mentions no charges of hypocricy regarding the foundation's donation policies.
This post excepted, I have only twice entered into this discussion. The first, served to correct errors you made concerning various edits. The second was the first and only post in which I've actually commented on the subject. You, who have left eleven posts in this discussion, ask that I refrain until others join. I will not.
You need not guess at my motives behind my long participation in this article. My edits here were motivated by the same desire as those I have made in over 2000 other articles: the desire to make a contribution to a viable and valuable project, and to do so in accordance with policies and guidelines.
You write that it is clear that I don't want the section included in this article, but this is not supported by facts. My record in removing the section under discussion dates back only to your repeated reintroduction, without discussion [2][3][4], after another had moved it to the discussion page for just such a purpose. The edit history demonstrates that over the course of seven months I have made several improvements to this section - this being the most recent - all in an effort to improve the section and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
You thank me for a reference I have provided for the David Suzuki article. I have never provided a citation for this article. The only edit I have made in many months was the removal of a sentence you added which was similar to one found in the section we are currently discussing on this page. As I stated at the time, this was done in the interest of avoid a similar debate in two different articles. I suggested that the sentence in question should remain on the David Suzuki discussion page until this issue is settled.
You've chosen not to address my concerns with the section under discussion. That is your prerogative. I look forward to discussing this issue with others. Victoriagirl 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I beg my pardon for wrongly attributing the reference. It was Sunray, not you. Let's wait for others to enter the discussion.

I work in the donor relations area of the David Suzuki Foundation and access donation records. I have edited the 'list of donors' section of the article, to reflect that the gifts reported to be made by Corporations in the 2005/200 annual report, were from employee giving programs and not gifts from corporations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept corporate gifts from corporations which have been defined to have a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzukination (talkcontribs) 00:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed sources[edit]

On September 8, I moved the "List of Donors" section here for discussion. In the discussion that followed, I pointed out that the way it was written constituted original research and that the addition of a questionable source did not change the situation. No reliable source has yet been found to support the contention made. Despite this, the section was repeatedly reinserted into the article by an editor. Only three editors have commented on the talk page. Two have supported the removal of the text. I will therefore remove it once more. Since the section casts aspersions on a living person, I think it is important to keep WP:BLP in mind:

Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

In light of Wikipedia policy and due to the concerns raised, the text should not be restored to the article. Sunray 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunray, you've failed to show why the sources cited in the section are less reliable then any other sources in the article. Moreover, your attention to sources seems somehow selective. For example you never minded the "OECD research" statement which in reality wasn't conducted by OECD. If you want to be consistent, you should move all the article to the discussion page. Because all other sections either do not cite any sources at all, or the sources they cite are not reliable by your criteria. Would you like to do it? Vryadly 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are talking about the OECD statement. It is not relevant to the discussion about the list of donors. You seem unable to respond to my concerns yet willfully keep putting that section back in the article. Two editors have suggested that you are in error. That means that there is no consensus to reinstate that material in the article. Please respect the consensus. Sunray 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking about a statement about an OECD study confirming David Suzuki views. The study actually hasn't been produced by OECD. Neither you nor Victoriagirl didn't take any step to correct this statement in all the time you was editing the article. That's one of the reasons why I see your determination to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies as at leas selective. The other reason - the first sections of the article doesn't cite any sources except for the documents of DSF itself. That's not a reliable source. The sections in its current state represents an original research. I'd ask you to provide reliable sources for this section of rewrite the article completely. Vryadly 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Vryadly, I will remind you, for a third time, of Wikipedia's policy concerning the assumption of good faith. I had no knowledge that what was once described as an OECD study was not, in fact, produced by the OECD. An investigation of the edit history will indicate that I did not introduce this claim. Furthermore, my sole participation in this particular section was made in response to a citation request which you yourself placed.
Now that the questioning of this article has spread to the first section, would you please indicate what it is exactly that you find questionable? The sections in question deal with the policies of the foundation. I fail to see why a website run by the self-same organization would not be considered a suitable and appropriate source of this information. Victoriagirl 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have again reinserted that section into the article, rather than work on it here. There is nothing to gain from an edit war about this. The article has only just been unprotected. However, I have serious concerns about the section as it now stands (see "NPOV," below). Sunray 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns[edit]

Regarding reliable sources. Ben Ami's, essay, as I have outlined above in considerable detail, is not a reliable source. His contentions are essentially an attack on Suzuk from a website with no peer review. Victoriagirl and I have made a case (above) that he has his facts wrong. Use of this as a citation creates a problem of neutrality.

However, I note that you have added two sources from mainstream media. This is legitimate criticism. However, the way the section is written is far from neutral. In any case, I won't revert it again for now. Instead, I will put a "neutrality" tag on it, so that editors can work on improving it. Because of the concerns raised above (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP), it is important that we get this right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to attack people. Sunray 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence from the article:
Ben-Ami concludes that "contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations."
This speaks to my concern, which has gone unaddressed, regarding the Institute for Canadian Values as a reliable source. In short, Suzuki made no such assertion - clear or otherwise. Victoriagirl 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. Regarding the Canadian Values Institute as a source - I would like to ask you to rewrite the first two section of the article. They are based exclusively on information from David Suzuki Foundation or its affiliates. Those are not reliable sources. To base an article about DSF on DSF web-site is essentially the same as to base an article about The Communist Party of China on press communiques of the party. Vryadly 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:V, material from self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
So as long as these conditions are met and other sources are used in the article, there is no problem with using the Foundation's website as a source. Sunray 01:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

=== Cover me boys, I'm going in! ==

I read the commentary and then looked at the section. (Bear in mind, I'm fairly new and still learning). *The quote attributed to suzuki was referenced first [5] which was backed up [6] this was corroborated by I don't know much about them, So I can't judge whether they're acceptable as a source, HOWEVER, we have three sources in agreement with each other. NONE of them are the editor's own source / website / self-published book / pamphlet / whatever. This editor added in this content because other sources (not himself) showed this to be factual. * The evidence against his "claim" was provided by his own list of donors. True, you can't see how much each donor gave, but in the report you can see a range of dollar amounts for each category of donor, so you can what range their donation was in. Again, this information is provided by Suzuki's own organization. * All of these resources were outside of the editor's sphere of influence.
None of these resources were the editor's own work/website/pamphlet/flyer/whatever.
This is clearly not original research or synth. The editor is reporting what is already written. I don't see where he's stating anything resembling A+B=C (example: if "a" is true and "b" is false then the truth is "c" , "C" being the editor's own version.). This looks 'not to be original research KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter has been dealt with. With respect, I think you missed the nuances of the discussion. At first there were no sources given. Then an editor added the annual report. However referring to that alone was still original research (because the editor was drawing a conclusion that wasn't stated in the report). Finally additional sources from the mainstream media were added that did make that statement. The section is thus passable. Not good (because the sources take issue with Suzuki but make a questionable interpretation of what he said). However, it is at least in keeping with the letter of the relevant policies. Sunray 06:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)