Talk:Planet Aid

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

== Neutrality ==

This article is completely unencyclopedic. A large proportion of the text is quotations extolling the company, and the article begins with a block quote from the company's website. PlanetAid is a controversial organization. As a little web research will show, it has been accredited as a charity by some organizations, while others say that only a small proportion of its resources go to charity, and that PlanetAid is closely connected to a cult called Tvind. Wikipedia (obviously) should not endorse either view, but refer to both of them. It certainly should not read like an extended press release from PlanetAid. 72.221.121.162 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed some of the advertorial text (there is still a lot of that left) and restored references to media exposés other editors previously cited. I suspect that the company's PR folks will reverse my edits! 72.221.121.162 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC) In the spirit of WP:AGF, I withdraw the previous sentence. 72.221.121.162 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text I removed is: "We started Planet Aid in 1997 in the Boston area," writes Planet Aid on its website. "The idea was to do something good for the planet and the poor. With only a few drop-off boxes and a rented storage unit, we started collecting clothes and shoes from the area. It wasn't long before our small rented space began to overflow. Though we were growing fast, the aim remained the same: expand global environmental sustainability and mobilize resources to end poverty." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.121.162 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2015

This article does not read like an encyclopedia entry. There are a number of conspiracy theories sourced to The Center for Investigative Reporting. Planet Aid is suing The Center for Investigative Reporting for defamation. Wizardryo (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added in new citations concerning the lawsuit. DabCat (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People start lawsuits all the time. That doesn't mean that we go out of our way to address their point of view. There are a number of conspiracy theories sourced to The Center for Investigative Reporting – if you want to suggest reliable, secondary and tertiary sources that present a balanced overview, by all means do so. Until then, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defamation lawsuits are expensive, and often difficult to prove. The fact that one has been filed is significant, and of merit to this entry. Adding factual information is not going out of the way to address their point of view. Ignoring factual information, and rejecting primary and secondary sources is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT DabCat (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We exclude factual information from the encyclopedia all the time: today's weather, for instance. Information is significant if published, reliable sources have treated it as significant. That's what "due weight" means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing today's weather to legal action is a false analogy. There seems to be a serious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than using factual, logical, and neutral information when suggesting edits for this page. DabCat (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing more for me to add. If there are reliable, published, secondary sources covering the lawsuit, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested reliable, published, neutral secondary sources covering the lawsuit, but you undid my changes thus starting an WP:EDITWAR DabCat (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". In any event, we currently cite two sources on the lawsuit,[2][3] so I really have no idea what change to the article, if any, is being proposed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be revisited. The neutrality of this article has to be in question. PlanetAid is clearly a controversial organization, but featuring one charity watchdog in the summary, how often the articles used are quoting their charitable competitors, and the very loose ties to this cult organization (which, if I'm reading this right, is only associated with the companies they donate to and not related to them?) paint this organization with an obvious and heavy bias. I'm going to add a neutrality tag so we can draw attention to the issue. 50.242.216.153 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC) — 50.242.216.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

On Wikipedia, neutral point of view means representing published, reliable sources fairly and proportionally. It doesn't mean giving equal validity to both sides of a dispute. Unless you can provide quality sources that offer a different view, or suggest other concrete improvements, there's no reason to tag the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added multiple, but they've been removed. Ratings from 3 agencies, the highest score (as far as I can tell) for financial transparency, several articles discussing the quality of the organization. I guess I could add details about CharityWatch to discredit them, but I don't think that's relevant to this organization. I don't see how this isn't obviously biased. Are there other editors/moderators who haven't had such a heavily active role on this page that could weigh in? I doubt your judgment is unbiased on this organization. 206.198.248.212 (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is quality. For claims about rating agencies, you cited the agencies themselves. Articles should instead be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially when it comes to balancing opposing points of view. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "About Planet Aid". Planet Aid.
  2. ^ "Charity Under Scrutiny Fires Back at Reporters". www.courthousenews.com. 29 August 2016.
  3. ^ Smith, Matt (21 August 2017). "Workers at African aid program linked to alleged cult sue for back pay". Reveal.

2016–2017 sources[edit]

A few recent articles published by the Center for Investigative Reporting:

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible synthesis, re: BBC[edit]

@Ahecht: I am having a hard time understanding your justification for using these two sources on this article: [1] [2]. This is WP:Synthesis. The BBC never uses the words Planet Aid. You are using A and B to say C. Flytilega (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not ideal, but they do support the text in question. Sources from the Center for Investigative Reporting make the connection to Planet Aid more explicitly: "Mexico won't arrest Danish fugitive wanted for fraud", "Brazil probes fraud by alleged cult using proof US officials dismissed", "Federal investigations launched into charity group; US funds keep flowing". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more sources in use that also do not mention Planet Aid. We would need to find alternatives for these:
Flytilega (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source must specifically mention Planet Aid, if it's merely used to provide context. What text from the article is being objected to, exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the line "...and Tvind leaders have been prosecuted in Denmark for financial crimes, with two convictions in trials in 2006 and 2009, respectively." This is WP:Out of scope and WP:OFFTOPIC. Going into so much detail about 2006 and 2009 convictions is IMO clearly coatracking. If this a notable topic related to Planet Aid, we should be able to find secondary sources. It is not enough that it is verifiable. The question is can we prove it is relevant to the subject of this page? Flytilega (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not out of scope to summarize the Tvind scandal in the section describing the charity's connections to Tvind. When you remove it, that leaves less than 30 words in the entire section that describes Tvind to provide context for the rest of the section. All the examples at Wikipedia:Coatrack articles refer to multiple off-topic paragraphs, not two sentences. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planet_Aid&oldid=1207688764"