Talk:World Vision United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Added pic of US headquarters office[edit]

I just added a picture of the main office in the US Headquarters office complex. This is not entirely appropriate, because World Vision is an international organization and there is not room for pictures of the main office in every country. However, the US office is special because the organization was founded in that country. Also as of right now, the only pages for country specific World Vision branches are for India and Australia. Perhaps in time if or when an article gets created specifically for World Vision USA, then this picture would be more appropriate there only, but until someone does more work I think it is appropriate to keep this picture on this general page about World Vision. It might be appropriate to show the US office here anyway. Any objections? Blue Rasberry 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical background[edit]

This article's historical background seems a bit too good to be true. I already revised it to make it seem a little more encyclopedic in style, but I'm still not sure about the factual accuracy. World Vision's official site says on their about us page [[1]] "Dr. Bob Pierce began World Vision to help children orphaned in the Korean War. To provide long-term, ongoing care for children in crisis, World Vision developed its first child sponsorship program in Korea in 1953." However, the article as it stands first says that WV was founded in 1950 in the U.S. and then in the history section that it was started by Dr. Bob Pierce in China. Also would it be bad etiquette to remove the irrelevant material below this on the talk page? Edonovan 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarified the organizational beginnings, and removed non-historical material from the section. Tomh009 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Where does the year 1951 come from? Since the "official" version itself is vague, would it be safer to say "in the early 1950s"? Neomal (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, to everybody. As I read in the German Wikipedia, World Vision is there connected to the Family in a historical context. "World Vision ist in seinen historischen Wurzeln verknüpft mit dem evangelikalen Netzwerk The Family." English translation: “Word Vision is historically connected to the evangelical net “the Family”. Is this just a misunderstanding in Germany? As I understood Sharlett the conection is between two persons and not between two organisations until today, and even not in a historical view. Maybe somebody could help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi There – This is in response to the unsigned question above. I work for World Vision in the United States, so I’m sure that you’ll want to continue to seek other third-party sources. Nonetheless, I’ve done some research with our finance, legal and partnership teams to see if there is any connection with the Fellowship Foundation (the group Sharlett refers to as “The Family.) According to our legal and financial records, World Vision does not have, nor has it historically had, an organizational relationship or connection with the Fellowship Foundation. In the 1950s, one of World Vision’s former leaders, Richard Halverson was also influential in the development of the National Prayer Breakfast, which the Fellowship Foundation coordinates. That connection, however, was personal and individual, not organizational. As far as I’ve been able to discover, the idea that the two groups are somehow linked seems to be a misunderstanding.Ap1053 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Ap1053

Comments about the value of the World Vision mission and organization[edit]

I've removed all comments on THIS PAGE (Talk) about how cool World Vision is, how important their mission is, etc. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss what should and should not be in the article, when someone has a question, or something is controversial. Wikipedia talk pages are NOT intended to be message boards. John Broughton 17:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories[edit]

While it is reasonably neutral to report that there are conspiracy theorists who think that World Vision is a CIA front, the statement "These claims whilst outrageous, do make logical sense..." is an opinion and also not NPOV. Thatcher131 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

While attemping to present a balanced article we must still be careful to present an accurate perspective. reasonably/neutrally reporting that consipiracy theories exist may ultimately distort the perspective. for example, some may believe that the United States of America has been infiltrated by Aliens. however in the article on the United States, this information would be considered unverifiable, and would not be considered relevant by a reasonable person. Clearthinker00 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been alleged (I don't know to what extent these allegations have been proven) that John Hinckley Jr. (attempted assassin of Ronald Reagan) led the World Vision chapter in Denver, while Mark David Chapman (murderer of John Lennon) was a World Vision employee. Additionally, the Rev. Jim Jones is said to have worked closely with World Vision while his Peoples' Temple was located in Ukiah, California. If these allegations can be determined to have any substance, the mere fact that World Vision has had so much involvement with such, um, interesting people, is probably sufficient to warrant mention in the article. It could reasonably be interpreted as evidence that some of the rumours swirling around World Vision, in terms of its being a CIA front or whatnot, may not be entirely without validity. For all practical purposes, its probably impossible to prove definitively that any organization is a front for intelligence activities, yet clearly such fronts do exist, and when such circumstantial evidence presents itself (assuming the veracity of those claims), it seems reasonable to include it in an article, especially within the context of an organization where such lingering suspicions are long standing, as in the case of World Vision.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to KevinOKeeffe: Sources? these allegations seem outlandish and unrealistic, without verifiable sourcing. Clearthinker00 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The official name of the organization is World Vision International so the main article should be at that page with a redirect from World Vision Thatcher131 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem is that World Vision International is the proper name of the organization, but there was already a stub there. If I cut and paste this whole page into that one for the sake of using the right name, I would be trashing the talk and history pages. So I redirected World Vision International to this page. Thatcher131 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is the wrong name. What is called World Vision in the US is called World Vision US from outside. Worldwide World Vision International is acting as World Vision, but the trademark is owned by World Vision Inc. (i.e. World Vision US). All partners of World Vision International are called World Vision in their countries whether they are independent (Like WV US, Canada or Germany) or dependent from World Vision International. --Diskriminierung (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Scandal in World Vision Austria[edit]

At the personal page of Karl_Habsburg-Lothringen some notes about the World vision scandal in Austria are mentioned. Could somebody please add additional information about it?

I also followed the link to learn more about the Austria scandal, but found nothing. Leaving out a scandal that resulted in jail time for the country director smacks of POV.--Counsel 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Without a verifiable reference we cannot overcome ambiguity: is the World Vision referenced in this article even the same as the international relief/development organization? where did the author get this information? Clearthinker00 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, I noted multiple articles in the Austrian press about it at that time, I will search at the Austian news papers web pages, so I might find an article or two ... --Dabese 18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
the German Article has plenty information + credible sources on this.


"Quick&Dirty" translation: World Vision has been active in Austria since 1976. The first Group to do so, World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk, was closed down by World Vision International after massive criminal activities of its Austrian CEO. A second organisation called World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung was founded after this in 1998 and has been working there ever since.

  • World Vision Österreich - Christliches Hilfswerk (until 1998)

The first structure „World Vision Österreich – Christliches Hilfswerk“ was shut down in November 1998, after internal checks of World Vision International had found irregularities in its bookkeeping and the documentation of its child sponsorship-programm.(Source: Austrian Development Agency: World Vision Österreich: Kofinanzierte Projekte in Afrika. Archive 04/1999.(German))

The media response to the scandal was quite high in Austria since the grandson of Austria's last emperor was involved. Karl von Habsburg who was also a Menber of the European Parliament at that time was a Member of "World Vision Österreich"'s board. Two investigations ("peer reviews") by World Vision proofed irregularities. An investigastion by the Austrian police showed lateron an massive embezzlement of funds by its CEO Martina Krones-Taurer. While the investigations still were ongoing the Groups rights to use the name of WV were revoked and a new structure founded. ( resume in the magazine "Datum" (German)). Investigations by KPMG auditor proofed financial transactions to the International Paneuropean Union using funds for the EU-election campaign 1996. ( „Unkorrekte Geldflüsse“ - Nach Prüfbericht steigt Druck auf Habsburg) (German). Martina Taurer-Krones (Die Presse: Betrugsprozess: Krones-Taurer erneut angeklagt. 26.01.2007) and her husband went to trial and were accused among other charges to have embezzled 1,1 Millionen Euro in funds for privat purposes like vacations and sportscars. Following long investigations the trial started in November 2003. She was sentenced to 3 years prison in September 2004 (no probation), her husband as a complice to 2 years (probation granted).

"World Vision - Gesellschaft für Entwicklungshilfe und Völkerverständigung" started its activities in 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemissimo II (talkcontribs) 09:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC). --Nemissimo II 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The German article was split and massive updated. Look at de:World Vision Österreich. --Diskriminierung (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of 2005 figures[edit]

I think it is wrong to use $1Bn the 2005 figure for two reasons: (1) the auditted accounts aren't signed off (2) there is a lot of exception tsunami income which inflates things compared to a typcial year. Anyone agree? --BozMo[[user_talk:BozMo|talk]] 14:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to World Vision financial statements, $1bn is far below the 2005 partnership-wide financial figures. Also, the 2005 figures were audited by PriceWaterhouse Coopers. According to the most current financial statements, since 2005 World Vision's non-disaster income has also risen so that $1bn is still a low and innacurate figure. Clearthinker00 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me a reference for that? Also "partnership-wide" including 100% of income with goes through partnerships or just its proportionate share? --BozMo talk 19:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

World Vision engages in coercion[edit]

The following statements were removed for verification: "Yet, World Vision is not respectful of other faiths. It engages in proselytism and religious coercion."

These statements could be quite harmful to the reputation of the World Vision and hinder the efforts of this and other charitable organizations. They should only be reinserted into the article if accompanied with a verifiable and reputable source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

Well proselytism is given. Its a missionairy org. Coercion up for discussion.Bakaman Bakatalk 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to World Vision, their organization does not proselytize, nor does it coerce. Additionally, World Vision does not claim to be a missionary organization. Identifying them as such seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the history and mission of the organization, or perhaps a simple misunderstanding of what constitutes a missionary organization. The speculative reference to proselytism and coercion should be removed from the article unless verifiable references are provided.

According to the definition of Proselytize: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine. To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

According to the World Vision Partnership Mission Statement: ""World Vision is an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the kingdom of God.

World Vision pursues its mission through integrated, holistic commitment to: Transformational development that is community-based and sustainable, focused especially on the needs of children; Emergency relief that assists people afflicted by conflict or disaster; Promotion of justice that seeks to change unjust structures affecting the poor among whom we work; Partnerships with churches to contribute to spiritual and social transformation; Public awareness that leads to informed understanding, giving, involvement and prayer; Witness to Jesus Christ by life, deed, word and sign that encourages people to respond to the Gospel.""

There is no alignment between World Vision's mission statement (i.e. practices), and the definition of proselytizing.

Clearthinker00 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I love the (i.e. practices) after the mission statement. No organisation or organization on earth of this scale can really identify these too so accurately --BozMo talk 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are from the article. "World Vision is an ecumenical organization willing to partner with all Christian churches. Yet, World Vision is respectful of other faiths.

World Vision believes witnessing from Christ is a fundamental part of their relief work. The organization believes that God, in the person of Jesus, offers hope of renewal, restoration, and reconciliation. World Vision seeks to express this message through "life, deed, word, and sign"."

The first paragraph clearly contradicts the second. How is witnessing (i.e. proselytizing) respectful of other faiths? This article needs to be more balanced instead of a blatant endorsement of the hateful coercion this group engages in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To be respectful of other faiths does not require the denial of one's own. It is perfectly possible to share one's faith in a respectful manner, just like it's possible for a democrat and a republican to have a respectful discussion about politics. In many Christian traditions, witnessing is not the high-pressure sales style commonly associated with, e.g. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but is centered in lifestyle and friendly discussion. It is a logical fallacy to automatically conflate such witnessing with disrespect.

Naturally, of course, most Christians believe that their religion is the best, or they wouldn't hold to it. The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, Wiccans, Wikipedians... ;) Holding openly to one is not the same as disrepecting the rest, any more than openly owning a PS3 is the same as disrespecting the XBOX 360. There's no disrespect involved in saying "Check out this PS3 game."

Of course, there are always fanbois, but what discussion doesn't have those? (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There's no disrespect involved in saying Check out this PS3 game. But there is disrespect in saying "Check out this PS3 game, but first take these essentials for surviving and thriving and thank the PS3 game for getting them for you." Also, in reference to "Clearthinker"'s comment above. Was that a typo or sarcasm when you said there was no connection between the definition of proselytism and World Vision's mission statement? Because the whole "Partnerships with churches to contribute to social and spiritual transformations", "Public awareness that leads to informed understanding, giving, involvement, and PRAYER"(capitalization for emphasis is mine) seem to be a clear connection between what World VIsion does and proselytizing. Readding that section. --Mobtown Mongrel (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality badly needed[edit]

  • While of course outright, unverified statements of criticism have no place in this article, it should also not read like a World Vision brochure. External links and article links should include at least a few that are critical of W.V., if any exist. Sentences like "Each national office enjoys an equal voice in the organization's governance, erasing traditional distinctions between the developed and developing world" are blatant promotions of this organization. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising space.

Escheffel 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Much of the article must rely on information provided by World Vision, as it is the most qualified party to describe the body of work of the organization. Criticism of that provided information must be done through verifiable references, or not done at all.

Clearthinker00 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Forgive the comparison, but that's like saying an al-Qaeda website is the best source of information on al-Qaeda. Obviously any organization's website will be self-complimentary, and therefore biased.

Instead of links to World Vision's offices in every corner of the globe, why not a few links to news stories about W.V., and to verifiable studies by charity watchdogs on what percentage of the group's funding goes toward administrative costs, etc.? Escheffel 23:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the veracity of a charitable organization's statements to those of a pack of mass murderers is, well, ludicrous. Jmdeur (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Though your followup analogy utilizes an extreme (an important distinction is board oversight, independant financial audit and regulatory/governmental accountability) I do acknowledge the fundamental assumption of your point: the need for any editorial or interpretive writeup (positive or negative) to be independantly verified, or verifiable. I'll look into watchdog and other independant analyses of World Vision's activities.Clearthinker00 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Escheffel 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost all sources (in google search) are other evangelical church orgs extolling the "bringing of Jesus" and things like that. It's nearly impossibleto find anything middle of the road and hard to find critical articles.

Bakaman Bakatalk 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The following points show World Vision has evangelical roots, but that doesn't prove that the organization is overtly evangelistic or coercive. Though the two terms are often confused, evangelicalism is different from evangelism. That's why each has a separate article on Wikipedia. Mdmcginn (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Robert Pierce founded the Organisation when he was working as an evangelist for Youth for Christ in China and Southkorea about 3 months after the beginning of the Korean War. Finaly he had to leave it after fundamental discussions over the organisation's missionary mission, later he founded a second "international Christian relief and development organization" named Samaritan’s Purse which is openly evangelical. Its President since 1979 is William Franklin Graham, Son of Billy Graham.

Richard Stearns, „President of World Vision USA“, is a member of (ECI) and describes himself evangelical(see Evangelical Christians and Israel/Palestine and Evangelicals for Social Action).
Bob Seiple has been „President of World Vision USA“ for eleven years (until 1998). He founded the World Visions Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) on the campus of the Eastern University, St. Davids Pennsylvania which is considered the organization's international Think tank. The organization has been offering an „Global MBA in partnership with World Vision“ together with „Eastern School of International Leadership and Development“ since the 90s and is although considered to be evangelical on a regular bases.

  • This article still reads like someone from Wold Vision wrote it. I need to find published references, but I know from two first hand accounts by highly respected scholars that they provide aid in Mongolia to converts only. Aid is the carrot used to get people to convert. They don't advertise this, of course, but this is what's going on. I'll try to find references for this. --Joechip123 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Every time someone says something critical about World Vision it is deleted or changed. World Vision was engaged in covert Christian evangelism in Sri Lanka (simply Google World Vision and the Mustard Seed Project). The hidden side of World Vision is highlighted in the book - A bed for the night by David Rief. World Vision were exposed in Sri Lanka trying to plant churches in Buddhist villages and convert children without them knowing. There is no evidence they have reformed given that they typically deny all such claims and not many media channels have launched investigations (who cares after all?). You only have to read this article between the lines to see that it is biassed and represents a whitewashing exercise. There are good, bad and ugly charities and WV veers towards the ugly. It is blacklisted by the website Christian Aggression from India. Sometimes, Wikipedia articles can scarcely claim neutrality.
  • I found the World Vision site from on ad on MySpace (of all places). It's like they're targeting my age group because they think we're naive and will just throw away our money. So I tried to look them up first, and all I found were their websites. Looks like they're spending that big budget on someone who knows how to show up high in search engines. So I came to Wikipedia and almost the entire article sounds like a commercial! So I added that little "The neutrality of this article is disputed." note and hopefully someone won't come along and remove it without actually improving the article first. I don't know why someone would want everyone to believe only their religion, but I'm keeping my money now that I can see that they're using it to convert instead of really help.--Merveilles (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Whatever the merits of the article, and however worthy the organisation, we can't have it sourced by their own promotional material. That's like basing an entire faith on the say-so of the deity that wishes to be worshipped. Seriously, until some heroic person undertakes the monumental task of rewriting the entry from the ground up, its encylopedic value is precisely zero, no matter how accurate World Vision's representation of itself may be. Might as well delete it. Sartoresartus (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I did a somewhat major rewrite of sections of the article. Please discuss what you think and if it is even close to removing the neutrality tag. Here are my changes. Jonverve (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have waited a couple days for any response. If I do not hear from anyone in the next 5 days, to make it a week, I will take the NPOV tag off the main page. --Jonverve (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I happen to think (as someone who works for a non-religious relief organisation of a similar size) that the article isn't that bad. I also quite like World Vision though (and we partner them in some places so I cannot claim to be NPOV). A few queries though: last time I checked although World Vision had a mission to help everyone you could only work for them if you were a committed Christian. Is that still true and is it true everywhere? Seems pretty relevant to me. Also I have noticed on the Google Video Tony Campolo advert for Compassion that Compassion promises to "evangelise" every child they sponsor (and Tony says "I just know she'll love the Lord"). Despite being a Christian I found that deeply disturbing. Can we get a position on whether WV does this (which I think is of interest given the vulnerable position of a sponsored child ref the organisation they are helped by)? --BozMo talk 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

According to World Vision, employees in context-sensitive countries (Islamic Republic's like Mauritania, etc) are frequently of other faiths such as Muslim. However, outside context-sensitive countries, employees are required to sign a Christian Commitment statement. In most countries (United States and UK for example) World Vision is legally a church, and are protected in their employment practices. Clearthinker00 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the query on who can work for World Vision, I know that employees of World Vision Australia (The 2nd largest member of the World Vision Partnership), despite not being located in a context-sensitive country, are not required to be Christian or sign a Christian Commitment statement, but rather need to agree only with the values of the organisation, one of which is "We are Christian". World Vision Australia is not a church, and abides by equal opportunity laws. It is my understanding that each member of the World Vision Partnership that makes up World Vision International decides on its own employment policy. --Sand82 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I work for World Vision in New Zealand and I've never signed or heard of a "Christian Commitment statement", and not all of my co-workers identify themselves as Christian (besides, to anyone who reads their Bible, Christianity is about actions, not beliefs). This "Christian commitment" thing seems to be unique to the US - I've editted the page based on evidence from NZ and Australia (if anyone can clarify further, please do). (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I have issued a massive clean up to this section of the article as it was just getting excessive and not consistent with WP:NOT. All country sites can be accessed via their international portal, so there is no use linking to each individual country site. thewinchester 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think somebody put them back up (assuming you took them down). I'll remove them again. For the editor who has put them up, see WP:LINKFARM. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I just took them down, but I want to post this link [2] here. It was listed under the EL section, but it could be used as a ref in the future. I just wanted to keep it safe here. Killiondude (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger of World Vision Australia and World Vision India into this article[edit]

I have proposed the merger of articles World Vision Australia and World Vision India into this article. These articles in their own right add little information about themselves, and would be best treated within this article under a new section titled global activities. From there, the activities of these two areas and many more can be documented better. Discussion is being transcluded to the talk pages of the other two articles to ensure all interested parties can be made aware. thewinchester 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles says "World Vision International operates as a federation of interdependent national offices, each overseen by their own boards or advisory councils." That the office in each country has its own board should be taken into account. Perhaps this makes them too independent to be combined? Also is there a page for the US World Vision Office, or should that be merged in here too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The World Vision Australia page should NOT under any circumstances by merged with the Main/American World Vision Page, they are completely different cuontries and contain separate information that should not be merged together. Cheonge 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree - this article should NOT be merged. Each of the WorldVision organsiations works in collaboration, but is yet an completly independent entity, often with a fairly different ethos and approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree too. In addition to the fact that each regional World Vision office operates almost independently from each other, each office works on so many unique projects on its own that merging or summarizing all the efforts of all offices into a single section in the main World Vision article would deprive Wikipedia readers of valuable information. Readers should be given access to information regarding the unique projects of each of the regional offices, and having separate pages for the regional offices provides for this need. --Impuissant (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thewinchester is correct in saying the individual articles are lousy, but that is a Wikipedia problem and not problem with the lack of distinctness in the different organizations. Like other people have said, respective World Vision offices act as independent organizations within their countries, and different things could be said about each one in their own WP articles. I am making notices on the WV India and Australia pages saying that there is not good evidence of the need for a merger at this time. Blue Rasberry 18:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


I reassessed this page because it lacks references and the article needs clean up in general. Killiondude (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Africa[edit]

I'm going to remove this article from WP Africa. The article states that this organization aids in 97 countries. Last time I checked, there weren't 97 countries in Africa, so they must be doing stuff elsewhere in the world as well. A quick glance shows aid is being provided by World Vision to Turkey, China, as well as countries in Africa. So unless we attach each country's/continent's WikiProject to this article (which would be a nightmare), I suggest removing Africa because that is unfair to the work they do elsewhere in the world. I'll remove it for now, and if anybody disagrees we can discuss it here. Killiondude (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Needing attention[edit]

I just marked the page as needing attention on both WikiProject Christianity and WP Organizations. The page is somewhat of a mess. It lacks a lot of citations, it has been tagged for neutrality, and the prose needs to be connected into one unified article instead of choppy sections. Killiondude (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid my english knowledge is not profound enough to help you in an adequate time. But our German articles on WV are quiet detailed and full of even English citations (and more on the talk pages). I'm not in english wikipedia on a regular basis, so if you need specific help please write on my German talkpage at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Diskriminierung and I will try to help you. --Diskriminierung (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This section needs to be removed unless accompanied with citation[edit]

"Foreign Correspondent replied to World Vision. In part, that response reads: "Foreign Correspondent sought answers from World Vision representatives on why the organisation's literature creates the impression that donated money goes directly to the sponsor child. The World Vision representative failed to adequately respond to the questions and instead outlined the community projects where sponsor money is spent. Foreign Correspondent does not dispute the integrity of World Vision projects but questions the way sponsorship is promoted to the public. In its response, World Vision has ignored the reporter's surprise at finding his sponsor child speaks no English, yet he has been receiving regular reports from the organisation that she's learning English at school and has a good command of the language..., Andrew Geoghegan has sponsored Tsehaynesh Delago for a decade and yet she claims she was unaware, until recently, that she had a sponsor and says the only benefit she has ever received directly from World Vision is a pen and the denim jacket she wore on the day of filming."[citation needed]

Some[who?] argue that the very concept of Christian aid relief to post-colonial countries is hypocritical in nature as the root cause of poverty, conflict and injustice in those areas is a consequence of the colonialism imposed in the name of Christianity. It is argued that organizations like World Vision de-politicize complex issues by offering an oversimplified, superficial solution that leaves the original, imperialist, eurocentric, 'paternalistic' power hierarchy intact."

Although it's argued, it seems like through the use of wikipedia's extensive language base, this person has managed to make his sentence seem as though it's realistic. He hasn't cited the quote, or who argue over the Christian aspect. (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


proselytizing is a concern. Does anyone know of any reports? I know that Samaritans purse has a history of making catholics in latin america attend evangelical worships services before giving aid to them and that world vision is closely associated with it.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Prosselytizing nowadays is forbidden for humanitarien relief organisations like world vision. So there should be no recent report on that. --Diskriminierung (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Samaritans purse has no direct connection. It was founded by Pierce after he was fired from World Vision US. --Diskriminierung (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dicrimination between World Vision International and World Vision United States or other[edit]

When you read this article it is hardly possible to determinate when it speeks of World Vision International and when of World Vision United States or another national organisation. We have six different articles on World Vision in Germany because of notable differences between the two above and World Vision Austria (which existed twice due to a funding scandal), World Vision Germany and its notable branches the German World Vision Childre Study and the German World Vision Children Award.

Are there no differences to World Vision Australia oder Japan or Uganda or (South) Korea? --Diskriminierung (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical - In what sense ?[edit]

What does "evangelical" mean regarding WV. Does WV have explicit written evenagelical positions and if true wich ones. Is the work of WV an evangelical one (spreading the bible as the only truth). Or does WV only have an evangelical historical background and a strong support by - beside other - evangelical groups ? --Arcy (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about the article's subjects, so this might not be a place for you to get answers to your questions.
What I can say is that your question demonstrates a problem with this article. World Vision is a model organization based in America, and it is also the name of various independent non-American organizations modeled after the American one. Different World Vision organizations have different rule sets, and also each one contracts most of their outreach work out to already extant smaller non-profit groups based in the places where they do their work. I would love to get documentation about the rules they make to govern this hierarchy. At the top, they are supposed to be a non-religious relief organization which has a history of working through Christian infrastructure. Some sources, mostly non-notable, have made claims that in practice their employees are evangelical and may be proselytizing with tacit approval from higher ups.
There is a serious need for sources of information for this article to discuss the question you raise. If you have any or find any, then please share. Blue Rasberry 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Arcy and me are involved in an big discussion on this issue at the German Wikipedia. On de:Diskussion:World Vision International#NUR_.E2.80.9ENennung.E2.80.9C der Quellen zu christlich.2C protestantisch.2C evangelical etc. You can find a huge collection of sources relating to that question. Most of the sources are in English. But our hardest problem is to translate one specific word: "evangelical". Since there ist not only one definition of evangelical it can be translated as "evangelisch", "evangelikal" or protestant relating to the context. To complicate all this a lot of the sources do not discriminate between de:World Vision United States (or World Vision Inc.) as we do, de:World Vision International and de:World Vision Deutschland (Germany). On the other hand a few sources differentiate between these three and indicate, that World Vision US is indeed evangelical in the conservative style we would translate with "evangelikal", but other sources indicate that it is parachurch or interdenominational including pentacost and catholic views. And some see World Vision International as "evangelical protestant" (I cannot translate this combination into German).

But we have nearly no sources about World Vision as a "non-religious relief organization". Where can I find such sources? --Diskriminierung (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Diskriminierung, I don't understand. Why are you seeking sources that it is non-religious? According to their web page they are a Christian organization. Why do you suspect that they are non-religious? (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I also want sources about this. There are several reasons for making the clarification. One popular reason for wanting to know is that people want to know if this organization uses its donations to try to convert non-Christian people into Christians. Regardless of whether this organization does this or not, some weak sources indicate either that World Vision does this or does not do this, and World Vision themselves seems to never have published any statement on the matter. Do you have any strong sources about this issue? Blue Rasberry 09:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to your second question, 'do they use donations to evangelize?"; I know nothing about them. But it sounds to me like a very different question than the one you wrote at first:
"But we have nearly no sources about World Vision as a "non-religious relief organization". Where can I find such sources?"
My source for the fact that they are a religious relief organization, rather than a "non-religious relief organization", is their English language web site, It states:
"World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.
Though I can't answer your question, I can say that from my conversations with workers for several other Christian relief organizations that they seem to take their commitments about what they may and not do or say while administering relief very seriously. This may be very surprising to those who are unfamiliar with orthodox Christian doctrine. But in spite of the fact that orthodox Christianity does require every believer to evangelize (a verse in the Bible called "the great commission"), Christian relief groups have a strong religious motivation to honor their promises even if the restrictions limit their ability to evangelize: Christianity has an even stronger commandment (a verse identifying the "greatest commandment") than the great commission. Every believer must love every human being without consideration of the recipient's faith (in Christianity "love" means 'sacrifice of one's own good for the good of another, especially of a needy person'). This commandment even applies to those who have made themselves the believers enemies, those who wish to hurt or kill the believer.
Hope this helps! (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


You can get the old Logo from or from here: [3] as SVG. --Diskriminierung (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Six different Interwiki-Links to German??[edit]

Does it really make sense to have six different Interwiki links? While I am part of the discussions on the German Wikipedia surrounding the multiple articles about different World Vision organizations, and can understand how that was broken down on the German Wikipedia, I would point out that 1) it is not an established consensus that this is a good thing there (having multiple articles), but this is still under discussion, and 2) even if it is a good thing there, that does not mean that this English article adequately describes the Austrian World Vision sufficiently to merit an Interwiki link to de:World Vision Österreich, for example--perhaps the :en-article is really only about World Vision International or World Vision Inc. (the latter being the US-based organization). What do the authors of this article (here in :en-WP) think their article describes?--Bhuck (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Diskrimminierung and Arcy found a new playground for their discussion. Mayby they can ask the anglophone people what 'evangelical' really means. :o) Widescreen ® 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish that there was enough extant information about the separate World Vision organizations to differentiate them, because they certainly are different. This article right now is a mixture of the activities of all the organizations worldwide. There ought to be discussion here about whether this is good, but right now there is not much interest here. I also am interested in what "evangelical" means; I do not know what this word means in the context of World Vision's policies and they do not elaborate in any source I have seen. Blue Rasberry 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The word "evangelize" in Christian theology means to "spread the good news", the news of reconciliation of man to God through grace. Like the Judeo-Christian theological term "angel", it is from the Greek word for "messenger". (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Every section of this article, except for the criticisms section(and even that is light on criticisms relating to World Visions proselytism(sp), evangelism, and potential coercion), reads like it was taken straight from World Vision pamphlets encouraging people to volunteer for and/or donate to the organization. I tagged it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobtown Mongrel (talkcontribs) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples of the kinds of things which you would want changed? Or perhaps could you provide a source which provides the kind of criticism you would like to see integrated? It is not obvious to me that this page needs a neutrality tag. Blue Rasberry 16:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "History" reads like a sappy sentimental story about the owner designed to tug the heartstrings of potential contributors and may not even be factual, since there's no source cited(which could possibly mean it's from Pierce and/or the organization itself, which is not a valid enough source considering what the claim is). In the section "Organizational Structure", there's no source for "an ongoing peer review system", or "held accountable". Lastly, the majority of the actual information(excluding the criticism section for the obvious reason) is sourced to World Vision itself, which can't be relied on as a neutral source(not saying that World Vision lies to make itself look better, just saying that we don't know(and can't assume) that they're NOT lieing to make themselves look better).--Mobtown Mongrel (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph you cite is this:
"Bob Pierce was motivated to found World Vision after speaking at a school in China. The next day, Pierce came back to wish the children farewell before returning home. While he was there, he noticed one little girl the schoolmaster had no way to care for. Many other children were already sharing the school master's food. So Bob Pierce began sending five dollars per month to sponsor the little girl whose parents kicked her out.
I agree that it sounds like a promotional clip, rather than text written in encyclopedia style. It needs to be edited.
What edits do you suggest?
For me two things stand out. First, a minor point: a brochure would use "Bob", but a reference article would surely never use a nickname when referring to a historical person. (Can't imagine an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Handel reading "So, Georgie decided to move to London").
Second, the history appears to be a quote from World Vision's source material, not an NPOV report. That doesn't mean it is not relevant, nor that it is the best available historical fact we've found so far. But it does mean that it should be qualified with "According to World Vision's account..."
Comments? (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:SURNAME in the manual of style confirms that you are correct that the article should not say "Bob". I do not think that the paragraph needs to be qualified unless additional citations are found. Right now there are no citations for this statement, but I also know that that World Vision publishes this story in their brochures. I do not know where to find this story in their official literature. If anyone has published an alternate story, then I would say that it would be best to qualify the differences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Bluerasberry. I do have an issue with your response that no qualification on the source is needed in those cases where the only citation found so far is from self-promotional materials, rather than from NPOV materials.
Here is my opinion on it: in this case, qualification should be always required by Wikipedia policy.
Note: I agree that, for a fact that is inherently non-controversial, the requirement for citation may at best be not an argument worth having. For example, if an author from the Illinois Society of Stamp Collectors writes that that their most recent meeting was held in Springfield, then perhaps it would be unreasonable to revert the text until the author could provide a source proving that the meeting was not in fact held in a secret location somewhere near Tunis.
Here is my rationale. If the only source available for a fact is self-promotional materials, and if that fact is presented as an NPOV fact, then the reader will be misled into thinking that it is NPOV fact, rather than the position of an interested party. If on the contrary the source of the fact is identified, the reader is able to weigh its value.
What do you think? (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In cases where there is some disagreement about a fact then it is qualified. If the community consensus is that a piece of information is NPOV, then it does not need to be qualified. My view is that every piece of information could be qualified, but usually this would be presenting more information than most readers would want.
If you want to qualify the founding story then I would say do it, but it seems strange to me to qualify a story when no one has ever asserted an alternate story. Self-interested publishers often do also create the NPOV facts. If everyone agrees that this is the best NPOV statement and only statement of any kind about the organization's founding, then why qualify it? I do not think that anyone would be mislead about the source of the statement; it is common knowledge that people and organizations often self-describe their origins, as indeed, who else gives attention to entities before they are famous? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi my name is Alicia and I attend Syracuse University. For my political science class I am required to contribute at least 20 paragraphs of information to an article about a NGO. I have chosen to research and edit the World Vision article for the next month. I would appreciate any and feedback you have and help! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcoll02 (talkcontribs)

Cool. I see you're part of the campus outreach thing that Wikimedia is doing. I think each of you have a mentor or something, but feel free to ask me on my talk page or here if you need any help. This article is quite an endeavor. Killiondude (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried editing for the first time today by just adding a small part to the criticisms section. If anyone finds any issues with it just let me know! Also, as I was reading over the article I noticed that parts of it seem hastily written. Would anyone object to me just cleaning it up a little and making it sound more professional? I was also wondering if there was any particular spots someone would like me to focus on. I have done a lot of research but I am a little overwhelmed on where to start and feel as if most of this article needs a lot of work! Let me know if you have any ideas! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcoll02 (talkcontribs) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • WP:BB and do as you like. If anyone has issues with what you do then you will be told.
  • Review the Wikipedia:Manual of Style if you want to make things sound less hastily written.
  • Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE so every article needs lots of work.
  • WP:CRITICISM gives advice about criticism sections
  • Sign your posts with ~~~~ on talk pages.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rename to World Vision United States[edit]

user:Diskriminierung just changed the article title from "World Vision" to "World Vision United States". I am not sure that this is appropriate because I think that the name of the organization is "World Vision". What is the actual name? I have no objection to renaming the article to "World Vision (United States)". Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

user:Diskriminierung is a german vandal. (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The official Name is still "World Vision, Inc" and they do business as "World Vision" (see [4]). The same name it was given in 1950; "World Vision United States" is no official name. World Vision, Inc also used since the late 1960s the name "World Vision International" (since 1972 this is a registered trademark) because it was at this time the founding and controlling organization of World Vision, in particular also on international level. E.g. the president of World Vision, Inc. was also the international President and the "International Board" was an entity within World Vision Inc. and its headquarter was called International Headquarter. In the late 1970s a spin-off was registered which took over the international functions (International President, International Board, the Mission Advanced Research and Communication Center, ..), the leading staff from World Vision Inc., and also the name "World Vision International". After this split World Vision, Inc. was basically only a support organization that is mainly responsible for acquiring funds within the US which it forwards then to World Vision International. However, even after the split both entities were for a long time controlled by the same people and even today they share staff and facilities. --MTYM (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
World Vision to World Vision United States and creating a new article World Vision International

Hi, I would like to point out that it seems some kind of changes in the article is going on recently. World Vision International was a stub article till 26th April. Now a lot of material has been moved to the World_Vision_International the headquarter of which is in London. Does this have any significance at all?..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talkcontribs)

In my view the article should be changed back to "World Vision" or at least moved to World vision (US). --MTYM (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the move was against consensus and probably should be reverted. However things got complicated as the same user also created World Vision International in which it copy-pasted (without attribution) material from this article. To make everything even more messy, both articles have been extensively edited since. I know almost nothing about this organisation, but in terms of procedure was completely wrong, and as a reader I am confused now. The questions are:

  1. Do we need two separate articles on World Vision (US) and World Vision International (also based in the US) ?
  2. Should World Vision redirect to World Vision International or a disambiguation page or elsewhere?
  3. Should this article be renamed to World Vision (United States) or other name?

--Elekhh (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What is definitely needed is a single article that covers the whole organization, including national members and international structure, from its founding in 1950 to today. After the separation, none of the two current articles does this. They are rather hastily separated with mainly only some copy-pasting. The whole organization was always refereed to as "World Vision" (today World Vision International as well as the national offices use the same logo with the label "World Vision"), so this is the best name for the article. "World Vision International" was only used since 1960s (and 1972 registered as a trade mark) first for World Vision Inc. and is misleading because later it was used with permission from World Vision Inc. for the newly registered international structure, and does not cover the national members. "World Vision Partnership" is today also an (unofficial) name for the whole organization but it only refers to the organization after it was again restructured in the 1990s and would be misleading if it is used for the time before. I think within an article "World Vision" also the most important national members and also the international structure "World Vision International" can be described so that no further article is necessary. But if a separate article about the US support unit is wanted I would suggest "World Vision Inc" or World Vision (Inc.). This is the official name under which this support organization is registered. "World Vision United Staates" is only an inofficial name that was first used in 1980, after the international part of the old World Vision Inc. was split off and it became only a support structure working basically only within the borders of the United States. It would be misleading to use this name for this organization before this split. --MTYM (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MTYM. On this talk page there is a rationale for keeping the articles together but there never was a reason brought to this talk page for splitting them. The pages should be merged. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - No one has formally supported the move of World Vision United States to World Vision. Discussion has reached a point where this option is not really being considered, but other moving and merging options are; still, even that discussion died out more than two weeks ago. Neelix (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

World Vision United StatesWorld VisionRelisted. Currently the discussion is more about a merge/rewrite rather then a simple move. Leaving the discussion open to allow that discussion to continue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The articles title was originally "World Vision" and was changed without giving a reason or consent to the new title "World Vision United States", which is no official name (see also discussion above). MTYM (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't World Vision International also just called World Vision? I would have thought that be the primary topic... If needed, parentheses can be used. Rennell435 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this group called Word Vision United Sates or just World Vision? If it is the latter World Vision (United States) would be the better title since the current title implies that United Sates is part of the official title. If it is the former please disregard.-- (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This article was originally an article about the whole organization (umbrella organization & national members) which is simply called "World Vision" (this is a registered trademark). This article as it is titled now here and the article World Vision International only cover partial aspects of this organization. We need definitely an article about the whole organization, because only in this way the history of this organization can be described in a coherent non-misleading way. The best solution (maybe the only one consistent with Wikipedia's policy) is to move this article back to it original title because it contains the complete edit history. BTW, user:Diskriminierung, who moved this article, was yesterday indefinitely blocked in the german Wikipedia because he was found to be part of an army of socket-puppets used to push massive POV into many articles related to evangelical and pharmaceutical topics [5] and there seems to be even a connection to an PR company with commercial interests and evangelical background. --MTYM (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think in this case it would be best to merge the two articles or, as you say, create an article for the umbrella organisation by taking relevant content from either article. Rennell435 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, best is to merge the two articles under the title "World Vision". Technically we can do that by moving this article back to "World Vision" (to keep edit history) and insert the relevant content from the article "World Vision International" whose content was anyway mainly copy pasted from the old World Vision article. If you meant that we are in agreement. --MTYM (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And then redirect both articles to World Vision? Rennell435 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Like MTYM, I also think both articles should be directed to World Vision. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I too think both current articles should be redirected to World Vision. --MTYM (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The current article lead needs a bit of tweaking IMO, but nothing above seems a valid rationale for the proposed move.

I think we need an article on specifically on World Vision International. But I suspect we need a separate article on the original body too, and the exact relationship between this original body and the current US branch of WVI needs to be set out more clearly. Perhaps there is even a case for three articles.

So far as this move goes, it needs to be justified in terms of WP:AT and WP:DAB, but we need to be clear exactly what the scope of this article should be before we can decide, and it's a bit tricky. Andrewa (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There was never a valid rationale for the split, and the sources do not support keeping the split.
Perhaps there should be multiple articles, but not right now because no one has added enough content to any of these articles to justify it. Every multinational organization in the world has a head office and branch offices. That is the case with World Vision. Most organizations presented on Wikipedia have one article, and not multiple articles for their headquarters, the specific branch in their founding country, and then specialized other branches. See Google, The Coca-Cola Company, and ExxonMobil for examples of articles for huge organizations doing entirely different work in different countries, but which do not have specific country articles without good reason, e.g. Google China.
If someone wants to split this article in the future based on sourced information specific to each organization, then I would support that. But right now, I do not think that anyone has made a claim that sources have been identified which provide supporting evidence for the idea that these different organizations are doing different work in some way which would not already be expected of any multinational organization.
If someone does not want the merge then I would call on that person to explain what sources differentiate the branch offices from the headquarters. Otherwise, revert to having one article at "World Vision". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Both articles have existed in some form since 2004, so it's a new merge proposal and would need to be justified by the proposer. Considering the amount of material in each article currently [6] [7] most of it non-overlapping, I'd think it hard to justify a merge. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Until the articles were split the article for World Vision International was a redirect to World Vision for five years. Before that it was this two line article. I assert that this is not a new merge proposal as there was only one World Vision article; now there are two. The justification for a merge is that there are sources only for one entity. Do you have a justification for the recent split? Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For a start (and as already stated above) there's plenty of non-overlapping material for two articles. The leads of each article should of course each link to the other (and do sort of, although both leads could use some work). Assuming this is done (and it can and should be done better) then the two-article structure will assist readers in finding the information they want, whether about the international organisation, or the US-based one which is legally the older, is now a member of the other, but still accounts for more than half of the funds overall.
It's then borderline IMO where the historical material concerning the organisation pre 1977 should go. It could logically be a section in either article, or could be a third article. Both articles on the current organisations should of course have a brief note on the history in any case, and link to this main account. I favour only two articles and would put this historical section in the article on the US-based organisation, but don't really care. Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not know what else to say, but here are my assertions:

  • there is no discovered content or sources about World Vision International, other than it is a bureaucratic behind-the-scenes office for all World Vision branches
  • the World Vision branch in the United States was originally named World Vision International and used that name for years, and many sources use the names interchangeably even today
  • it is highly unusual to have separate articles on Wikipedia for a headquarters versus national offices (See Google, The Coca-Cola Company, and ExxonMobil, which all are multinational but articles do not differentiate their countries)
  • until the articles were split a few months ago, there was no World Vision International article
  • There may well be content which differentiates World Vision branches from World Vision International, but no one has identified it. The article was split by a single editor without consensus or any message on the talk page.
  • The World Vision International article content needs to have most of its content moved to the article about the American branch. It refers almost exclusively either to work done by the American branch or by other national branches, and not to very little which could be construed as happening by the WVI which negotiates finances and legal documents but executes nothing in-field. The WVI article should not be a catch-all for all work not done by the American branch, especially since the American branch is the fundraiser for almost all other branches.
  • WVI and the American branch share offices and staff - the distinction is on paper and not in physical location. WVI, like any multinational organization, is actually registered as dozens of organizations for different purposes.

For these reasons, the articles should be merged. I do not accept your assertion that there is sufficient evidence to keep the articles apart. I recognize that you have said the articles have different content, but this is only because the original article was split and some content went to one and some content went to the other. Other users have added content to both articles since then, but I do not believe they consciously distinguished WVI from the US branch and would have been confused to learn of the split. Could you please point to sources for World Vision International which indicate that it does work which does not involve a national branch, or which somehow differentiate it from a national branch? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by The WVI article should not be a catch-all for all work not done by the American branch. If we have one article as you propose, surely it would be on WVI, and would include material on these other branches? If we have two, surely again material on these other branches would go into the WVI article, not into the one on the American branch? Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
WVI has no more to do with say, WV India than it has to do with WV USA. The user who did the article split had some interest in differentiating different branches, particularly his own, World Vision Germany. I would oppose attributing all non-American activity to WVI because that is contrary to both reality and more importantly, the sources.
If we had one article it would be called "World Vision" and be about the World Vision's organizational brand identity and public actions, which is the precedent set by articles like Google, Coca-Cola Company, and ExxonMobil. Those articles freely mix actions done by the headquarters and branch offices, because either action is done by branch offices or it is impossible to say what only comes from headquarters.
If there had to be two articles, then I would propose that one be about the US branch and one be about every branch in every other country - World Vision (outside United States). There should be no article about World Vision International, but it could be mentioned in both articles as a legal entity created for the purpose of managing contracts, sharing resources, opening interoffice communication and not actually executing World Vision's mission except by supporting other WV entities. Even that much is strange because every multinational organization has a headquarters, and being the headquarters of a notable organization does not make the headquarters notable - see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
So you don't think World Vision International is notable enough for an article? I begin to understand, but I'm astounded. An indefensible position IMO; WVI is a billion-dollar concern. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, World Vision International (WVI) is not the whole organization, it's only the umbrella organization which does mainly coordination and logistic stuff, and World Vision (US) is only the US branch which is mainly responsible for getting funds and donations. This means all other national branches are at moment not really covered by the two articles. This is why a article "World Vision" (= umbrella organization & national branches; as it existed before user:Diskriminierung moved this article and separated it) is definitely needed. I do not much care how this is achieved. I favored moving this article here back because this would keep the edit history and the corresponding content together as it was before the article was moved by user:Diskriminierung. Another possibility would be to move the article "World Vision International" to "World Vision" and develop it into an article about the whole organization (and keep this article here but move it to "World Vision (US)" because the current name is not an official name). Another possibility would be to keep both current articles and have a third article "World Vision" about the whole organization.
But the problem with keeping one or both existing articles together with an article about the whole organization is that contrary to your statement the current article contains not much content specific to the US branch. In the subsection "History" only the last sentence is specific to the US branch (before 1978 it was not a branch), the rest would be covered by the article "World Vision". The next three subsection "Organizational strucure","Spirtuality", and "Funding" are basically true (except one or two sentences) for all other national World Visions and would be therefore be described in the "World Vision" article. The next subsection "Activities" is nearly completely wrong here in this article (WV/US itself works mainly within the US as support structure) and belong also in an article about the whole organization. In the subsection "Critcism" only the last paragraph is related specific to World Vision US. The few sentences that remain can easily be put in a subsection about the US branch in the article "World Vision". The same is true for the current article about the umbrella organization.
Clear is that it can not remain as it is at the moment. E.g. at moment, a reader typing "World Vision" into the search function is redirected to an article that gives him the first impression that Mooneyham founded World Vision. Every source outside of Wikipedia names Bob Pierce as founder of the whole World Vision. Here in Wikipedia he appears to be only the founder of a national entity. Wikipedia is here basically rewriting the history of World Vision.
Btw, the story about user:Diskriminierung and his activities in Wikipedia even made it into national media outlets in Germany ( Hier prüft der Bürger das Insulin noch persönlich: Die dubiosen Verstrickungen von Wiki-Watch, vom 1. Juli 2011) (sorry, only german). His move of this article in the first place had other intentions than having two good articles. This explains also the mess he left here. It's funny that he could move this article in the first place without big discussion but its now so difficult to simply undo his move. --MTYM (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Small Typographical Changes[edit]

I'm not really clear on Wikipedia policy, so as an employee of World Vision US, I am submitting a few small changes here instead of directly editing the article.

Please adjust

From 1966 on the organisation used in business also the name to "World Vision International"[5] but from 1977 on this name was reserved for the umbrella organisation World Vision International.[6][7] and the founding organization as a member of world vision international is called world vision united states whenever a distinction is necessary.


From 1966 on the organisation used in business also the name to "World Vision International"[5] but from 1977 on this name was reserved for the umbrella organisation World Vision International.[6][7] and the founding organization as a member of World Vision International is called World Vision United States whenever a distinction is necessary.

That is, simply capitalization of the organizations at the end of this section

World Vision International is called World Vision United States

Tvjames (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look above you can see that no one could find sources differentiating World Vision, World Vision International, and World Vision United States. Do you have official published sources explaining the differences? If you want to make proofreading corrections then feel free. If you want to add content then respect WP:COI and make a note on your userpage that you are an employee, but feel free to make noncontroversial changes to the article. People will watch what you are doing and it will be fine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)