Jump to content

Talk:Operation Blessing International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Anyone here about Pat using operation Blessing planes for his diamond mining buisiness

Here's a reference for that in case anyone wants to do research. --Craig Stuntz 13:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV Violation?

[edit]

It seems to me there is a NPOV violation here. This charity has an "excellent" rating in every place I've seen, yet this is not mentioned at all. Their money spent on advertising and administrative expenses is very low, as most of the advertising is paid for by the (less efficient) 700 club charity. This ensures that almost all money given to Operation Blessing goes to relief efforts. There has been no evidence that I can find about Pat Robertson funneling Operation Blessing money to him or his ventures. The linked article above says that Pat Robertson reimbursed Operation Blessing for the use of its planes. The diamond mining scandle definately belongs here, but the way it is presented violates NPOV in my opinion. The article seems to imply as is that even though the organization is supposed to bring relief to ravaged regions of the world, it is however used for Pat Robertson's personal ventures. Zzxcnet 03:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We love our leader. Our unquestionable, omniscient, all caring, diamond mining leader. Oops, perhaps we should mention that he is the guy who wants Chávez killed because he’s un-American.
OB- not just a charity; a religion. (unsigned comment by 216.87.87.233)
Regardless of everyone's personal opinion, the article should be a NPOV description of the charity. It should not be implied that Operation Blessing is a scandle-ridden puppet of Pat Robertson.. it's not. Zzxcnet 18:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Zzxcnet, please Be Bold and please help us fix it, with concrete edits and/or examples of changes you want to make here. It's considered bad form to just add NPOV to an article and then to just ask others to fix it for you (yes, I found this out the hard way - but I was nicely educated...). Thanks. --NightMonkey 09:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I've been working on reworking the article, but I'm trying to make it as NPOV as possible before I add it. I don't want to just sway the POV. I added a "Scandal" section to the article to replace the last paragraph that I've tried to make as NPOV as possible. I've taken out some information that I didn 't see as necessary or where I couldn't find source material to back it up. If someone can find the source material and wants to add some of it back, go ahead. Zzxcnet 13:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note that I used the wording "some have criticized." Since no charges were ever filed, and since I couldn't find a consensus opinion in this regard, I don't thing "has been criticized" would be as appropriate. Zzxcnet 20:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, then, when you do find references, using some phrasing that is more specific, such as, "Noteable criticism from <SillyMuckrakers> has been leveled at <BigBadGuys>, stating that..." or something in a similar vein. Just a suggestion to keep the Weasel Words accusations down (though, sometimes they are hard to avoid when covering contreversial topics). Sounds like you're doing some good work, Zzxcnet! --NightMonkey 21:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I added some references, improved (hopefully) the section splitting, and made some npov changes to the Katrina section. Zzxcnet, what more do you think will be necessary to get rid of the npov warning? --Craig Stuntz 14:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Zzxcnet - are you AWOL? I'm inclined to consider removing the NPOV notice in 24 hours from this posting if you can't actively help us remove the NPOV notice and contribute to the article. An alternative would be to only tag the section under dispute, rather than the whole article. With news stories and coverage like this gathering steam, I suspect that the neutrality issue you've seen becomes less and less apparent. We must cover these sorts of things in the article, but we need someone with more information on OB to flesh out the articles we've changed the article to hopefully reflect NPOV - what more needs to happen? --NightMonkey 01:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I removed the NPOV notice, and added a stub notice. This is more appropriate. Anyone can add more information to this page if they feel it needs more information and you have good sources and it helps the flow of the article. Thanks. --NightMonkey 04:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced, uninteligible material

[edit]

The following section, besides being loaded with POV phrasing, is entirely unsourced. I have brought it here, where anyone who wishes may source it, rephrase it, and reinsert it once it's been made encyclopedic. I've taken the liberty of wikifying what's here. I don't understand what claim is even being made about FEMA's website - what on Earth does that have to do with Hugo Chávez? And what does "those who know Robertson's record" mean? Yikes. And when was "on Sunday"?

Other Questionable Practices
Robertson uses that Christian network for some markedly unchristian purposes.
A few years back, he repeatedly defended Charles Taylor, the former brutal dictator of Liberia who is under indictment by a UN tribunal for war crimes.
As with Mobutu in the Congo, Robertson had a personal stake in the matter: He had millions invested in a Liberian gold mine, thanks to Taylor, according to press reports.
On August 22, 2005, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Those who know Robertson's record raised such an uproar that on Sunday FEMA suddenly rearranged its entire Web site for hurricane donations.
Gone was Operation Blessing's name and choice location. Replacing it was an alphabetical list of nearly 50 national relief organizations.

-GTBacchus(talk) 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C&P

[edit]

I've deleted the programs section as it is a direct cut and paste from the official website. Pennywisepeter 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it important to delete Operation Blessing's programs?

[edit]

The descriptions were factual. Don't you think it's a service to show the public what types of assistance is being provided in order for them to make an informed decision? Numerous humanitarian/cause-related organizations represented on Wikipedia have full program outlines, countries represented, logos, etc. I'm requesting that the programs be resubmitted.

-OBIKristin November 21,2006

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Blessing International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Blessing_International&oldid=1235728706"