Talk:World Vision International/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge ?

This should be merged in World Vision being that they are the same thing. (Bdelisle)

  • World Vision International is the proper name of the organization and the merged article should be here. Thatcher131 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created or significantly (5x) expanded.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code if you created a new article: 

{{subst:NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

or this code if you expanded it 

{{subst:NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=expanded | author= }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the article has been mostly copy-pasted from World Vision. --Elekhh (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of child sponsorship section?

This section does not cite sources, contains weasel words ("...World Vision serves everyone irrespective of religion, caste, race, ethnicity or gender.") and has spelling and grammatical mistakes.

It also seems to contradict the next section "criticisms", where World Vision states that donated money does not go to sponsored children directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.10.9 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated revenue

The 2010 report isn't anywhere near 2.6 billion. It's more like 1 billion (1.041 billion). I think we should update the number. [1] -Legaia (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's only the numbers for the US support structure (World Vision/US), not the total numbers for World Vision International. --MTYM (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WV India

If we write something about WV India at all we should write something that is special to WV India and not about something that all other national World Visions claim to do in a similar way. But this articel is mainly about the whole organisation and not a single national member. Why should we write so much about WV India? --MTYM (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

funding issues

do'a - you have reverted the following without explanation several times - could you tell me what about this reference doesn't work for you? maybe we can talk about it here so we can work out something?

According to an article in the Jerusalem Post in February 2012, based on information provided by the Israel Law Center, World Vision Australia has provided "financial aid to a Gaza-based terrorist group," the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), which is a "front for terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine."[1]

thanks - Soosim (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source for that topic: [2]. World Vision has obviously meanwhile suspended the link to this organization. --MTYM (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


I deleted following part of this paragraph:

  • "The Ausralian article did not contain any counter allegations from Shurat Hadin or evidence that its allegations had any substance. The issue has not been raised in other media outlets since AusAID and World Vision's response through The Australian. This outcome is consistent with many Shurat Hadin cases, allegations and even legal action. Its work regularly does not translate into concrete prosecutions. [2]"

This seems to me like a personal assessment. In particular the judgement about Shurat Hadin seems to be not really backed by the given source. Also the publication of this information is now only a few hours old and that there is no response until now isn't worth mentioning.

  1. ^ Australian groups accused of aiding PFLP-linked group
  2. ^ http://www.israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=335&show=reports2

--MTYM (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First section reflecting the article

Hello,

The first section before index section does not reflect criticism section. This is to be included.ईती ईतीUAनेती नेती Humour Thisthat2011 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon editor blanking pages

For the record, there was an anonymous editor apparently based in Osnabruck, Germany, who last summer repeatedly blanked World Vision Appalachia, World Vision India and World Vision Australia. IPs included 92.252.67.255 and 92.252.64.13. Their logic, as revealed in discussions with User:Philg88 seems to be that if World Vision gets articles for its local subsidiaries then everyone will want one. Aside from the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument, and that Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER, there seems to be plenty of referenced information in those local articles that would overwhelm this one and they should stay. There's certainly been no discussion and consensus to delete them like that. Might I ask people to watch those articles to see if this person tries to blank them again? FlagSteward (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mono and Plural Valued Checks, Balances and Possible 'abuses' of Intrinsic Lay-person's 'good-faith'

The significance and influence and accountability of multi-national/palatine model/sub-contractual organisations and associated valued-affiliated possible play-on of intrinsicalities: New Frontiers/Brickhill Baptist Church, did raise funds and give/laud World Vision keenly when I was there 2001-2005/6. Most of these folks are VERY well educated. [[3]] http://www.exminister.org/Madsen-Christian-mafia-first.html. http://www.brickhillbaptistchurch.org/ http://www.brickhillbaptistchurch.org/resources/churches-in-bedford/3 http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/ and they are 'politcally' active of recent decades with organisations like Centre for Social Justice and as an International 'reach and range' organisation, invariably wield influence to any politicians who will listen: http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=46. I attended these Churches from 1981-1994 and 2001-2005/6 and knew many 'founding authorities' personally. Personal experience may be questionable/challenged, but the role of the eye-witness and outcomes of policies which may impinge on the rights of access to others 'greater or lesser' has to be measured with the claims the affiliation and inherent values trumpet; e.g. here, that with the 'Restoration Movement' in the Church ; [[4]]. If I wear the uniform, or indeed; 'take off uniform and merge with the crowd (contemporaryism) aesthetically pitch or flavour? I may 'only be doing my job'; but some may be more 'laudable' than others, hence 'values' need objectively to be weighed - individual and/or others, internal or external - how do we ensure objectivity beyond our intrinsic affections and the balance of power, is not masked as 'relationship' but meted out in an understanding of unwritten contract to mean 'absolute, unconditional one-way street, top down'? Point being, World Vision were via a personal association, tentatively linked to another organisation providing 'off benefit' services out of Papworth Trust auspices in Cambridgeshire, one of many in a 'market'. To those who have not encountered or who have no grounds to question or challenge, it may not occur as an issue; but to ex-members who have not been 'success' labelled per se; it may carry [[hidden baggage]] and links of association, positive or personally problematic. Consumer choice, being denied if 'the model' is the only one in the market, albeit other expressions doing more or less the same basic goods and services 'on a contract'. That this 'model/experience pattern' may repeat and the interchange of structural and personal, professional and private, is where objective values and measurability/'rights' may need to be qualified and independently (any and all walks of life)assessed and scrutinised. But whether they can/are, may not be so much a matter of 'faith and doctrinal' dispute/dissent/apostasy, even as one may be so accused, per se; rather what constitutes 'trust' and 'churches/any other organisational structure', built on 'relationships, not institution'; accessed equitably and proportionately of cost to incomes of purported or actual 'to the least and less' as well as 'greatest/most empowered 'Authorities'/Hierarchy, be accessed within the interface of the structure/outlet itself/or challenged? http://www.[[papworth]].org.uk/page.phps=5f433bc6fad9094a4658832690a2f85c&urlid=leadership_team (Richardmk40 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)).


New Edits

hmm, does not look like you have read the Accountability Report 2011 really:

"2.4 Location of organisation's headquarters. The World Vision International Global Centre offices are responsible for global strategies, policies, standards and controls. The Executive office of the Global Centre is based in London and houses the President's Office plus several key leadership roles. Key functions (including IT, finance, programming and human resources) are located in other locations in capitals and countries around the world. "

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/0DA5D0279F5038378825764F006DA5CE/$file/ACCOUNTABILITYREPORT_FY11web.pdf (page 4)


And also check wvi.org - they are not evangelical but Christian (unless you consider protestants, adventists and orthodox as evangelical but then check your definitions), so I quote from WVI.org:

"Who we are: World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy organisation dedicated to working with children, families and communities to overcome poverty and injustice. Inspired by our Christian values, we are dedicated to working with the world’s most vulnerable people. We serve all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender.

Mission: 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."

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/maindocs/3F50B250D66B76298825736400663F21?opendocument

so please read up and correct. and in case of doubt call LEXO (the London Executive Office)...


on locations:

London Executive Office Waterview House, 1 Roundwood Avenue, Stockley Park Uxbridge, Middlesex UB11 1FG United Kingdom

source: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf/maindocs/E87F3116D624B1018825737500756070?opendocument

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That is no contradiction since evangelicals are christians. I have read a lot about WV and could give you a lot of internal and external sources showing that they are evangelical. Also you can read for instance in this dissertation (J.R.Hamilton: "An Historical Study of Bob Pierce and World Vision's Development of the Evangelical Social Action Film" Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1980) and also other publications why they prefer to use in their PR the word "christian" instead of "evangelical". Its not because they are not evangelical, its rather because they want also to advertise to people who are not evangelical themselves and may have negative association with the word "evangelical". The Webpage of World Vision, like most other organizations, are not primarily made to give accurate objective information, they are made to attract donors. --MTYM (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Monrovia, California is still the registered address. And there are anyway a lot of locations given as "headquarters" --MTYM (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


What is stated here is really flawed logic, as evangelicals are christians, not all christians are evangelicals - so reference to evangelicals to capture protestants and catholics is incorrect, should be the other way around - again flawed logic here - also, your reference is to WVUS materials, which is one of the many World Vision offices, which is a similar category of mistake as confusing WVUS President as the World Vision International President (which he is not).

Lastly, the Accountability Report 2011, wvi.org website and internal documents like Covenant of Partnership is not only to attract donors, it is also to communicate who we really are, including the many Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox leaders, many of who would definitely not agree with your shortcut of calling World Vision evangelical as a result of Hamilton's historical study on what is currently WVUS

In case of doubt, please check with the global leadership in World Vision International (of which I am part, best to connect to the Global Communications group) before making any further incorrect edits or assumptions. Thanks.

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Read : Wikipedia:Third-party sources. That's what we need and not people who claim the they some insider view. And BTW, isn't a Statement of Faith, identical with the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, part of the Covenant? --MTYM (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This court case about WV's christian identity is pretty third-party and verifyable, which the book of Hamilton is not, that subjective biographical info from 1980 - so no current and verifyable facts

see: http://www.worldvision.org/resources.nsf/main/ninth-circuit-court-decision/$file/World.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"and not people who claim the they some insider view." hence (checking the sources might be valuable for you) http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/christian-identity-hiring-practices

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a Dissertation is not reliable? and the case did not even threat the question whether WV is evangelical. Gell, Diskriminierung --MTYM (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
what about your logic then that if evangelicals are Christians, that a Christian organisation like WVI should be evangelical? hmmm... seriously start to doubt logical thinking capabilities here...

2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is your style of discussion exactly identical to the blocked german user Diskriminierung? --MTYM

Not sure, but why is it that you are very unWiki, you have not even verified claim of german vandal and not checked sources, you quotes a book about WVUS to apply to WVI, and you state that if evangelicals are christians therefore a christian organisation is evangelical - you refuse to check sources - if you continue like this you should be blocked... 2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
let's see who will be blocked. Actually I checked the sources. --MTYM (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

)


When I removed "Richard Ziegert: Das protestantische Schisma, in: Pfälzisches Pfarrerblatt 2006. online" it was because it is not a academic source and only in german anyway. He btw also state WV as evangelical. --MTYM (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


@IP ( ‎2001:980:a9df:1:64fd:e2ee:9515:ac1a ): Where exactly did I make the assertion that all protestants are evangelicals? I said that if someone is protestant (or christian) he can also be evangelical. If WV (or others) call them self christian or protestant that does not mean they are not evangelical. --MTYM (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@IP ( ‎2001:980:a9df:1:64fd:e2ee:9515:ac1a ): Also, e.g. Davis Stoll (given among the sources), talks defnitly not about WVUS when he writtes about the international activities of world Vision in Latin america. WVUS is mainly a support organization to acquire funds within the US. --MTYM (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Exactly, to your point "If WV (or others) call them self christian or protestant that does not mean they are not evangelical.", but that does not say that they are evangelical either - so invalid conclusion - again check your logic or take argument logic classes 2001:980:A9DF:1:64FD:E2EE:9515:AC1A (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Only, that many sources explicity tell that WV are evangelical. None says they are not evangelical. So not invalid conclusion, only correct citing of sources. --MTYM (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, your arguments, style of distorting the argument of others and then attacking them personally are exactly like blocked german user Diskriminierung -MTYM (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, is it Diskriminierung aka Kewn Jänkins alias Wikiwatch.de alias Advocado etc. again? --WSC ® 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, looks like. His typical misleading arguments (all literature is only about WVUS, if somebody says christians this means they are not evangelical ..... etc). Didn't know you are also active in english Wikipedia, but nice to meet you here. --MTYM (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh no! Not again. I remember the discussionpage archiv of german WV-article. Didn't you? Someone told me it is the longest in german WP. I don't know if it's right? --WSC ® 07:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, until Diskriminierungs army of sock puppets blew up and even media reported about the story and the head of the self described Wikipedia-watchdog "Wikiwatch" had to admit a connection to Diskriminierung[5]. Hope this will not happen here. --MTYM (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be most accurate to say that World Vision has historic roots in the evangelical church but that over time it has evolved into an organization that reflects the breadth of traditions within the Christian faith. If you cite sources whose main point of reference is World Vision U.S. then you are going to see an organization that continues to be oriented towards evangelical churches, which in general reflects Christianity in America. However, if you visited World Vision offices in the Republic of Georgia, Australia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and Brasil, you would likely come away with an entirely different picture of the organization. The U.S. office employs only about 3% of the total employees of World Vision; generalizing about the affiliation of an organization by looking at one relatively small part of the organization is not going to give an accurate picture. World Vision in the 21st century is a Christian organization, not an evangelical organization. This article in Christianity Today shows some of the development of the organization: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/march/18.50.html?paging=off. idev 22:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey de:Benutzer:Diskriminierung. How'r yo doin? Since you were blocked in de:WP I din't hear anything about you? What about your Buddy Wolfgang Stock? Do you still try to write POV in Wikipedia? --WSC ® 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement...

The introduction and history/about sections are written like advertisements for world vision and do not seem to meet wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. If someone has the time, could you mar the page as such and re-write them to be more encyclopaedic and or neutral. NotinREALITY 10:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This article here is not the only one affected. Sometimes one get's the impression that Team World Vision is very active in Wikipedia. --MTYM (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs more independent sources.

It has been suggested that this article has been written like a promotional piece. Someone else even suggested that it be deleted. There are plenty of independent and reliable sources to build a good article. Here is just one source http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/world-vision. I have begun that work and invite other editors to improve the article using reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine There are a few issues to resolve here. One is identifying what good sources exist, then the second is imagining what organization ought to be covered and how. Check this out:
There is a lot of overlap in what is covered in these articles, and it is not certain that all of these articles should be covered independently. As you look at this article, look at the others. I would comment here but I am not ready to do much else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Blue Rasberry. I will. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked and there does seem to be some overlap between the articles. The International organizations, Australia, India etc. have separate CEOs so I think they should have their own articles. For now, I will put attention on the parent article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Elmmapleoakpine I noticed that you used a World Vision advertisement as a source for verifying the relationship of some people with World Vision. Some of these are more non-independent sources, right? Are these not the kind of sources which you were talking about removing? I would support the deletion of any names for which you find no independent source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
BlueRasberry I only used those as a simple way of proving the advocacy of the individuals listed. Keep in mind I didn't add those people to the article. I was simply thinking- the reader can see that it is true with their own eyes. If you think they should be removed. I have no objections. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There are still a lot of primary sources

There are still a large number of references that seem to come from literature published by World Vision itself. As a result I think there is still a lot of wording in this article that is not neutral. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine There are a lot of primary sources cited and they are reducing the quality of this article. The article would be improved by removing citations to primary sources, then removing all content which is not backed by a citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
While there are still a lot of primary sources, I have reduced them significantly. I don't think it is by any means done. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Vision 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 09:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality of article and weasel words

Second opinion needed on how to help the neutrality of the article and weasel wording problem. MirandaStreeter (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Further explanation:
This article is very problematic. There are unsubstantiated claims, unnecessary details, strong weasel words, and deflection of negative press written right next to the critical article it cites. The paragraph about the documentary (under Criticism) glosses over any criticisms and spins it into something positive. Not to mention there are sections without headers.

World Vision announced that it would hire what it defined as Christians in same-sex marriages.

...What it defined as? This is close to having scare quotes around the word Christians.
I can't cite every questionable instance, the whole article is filled to the brim with such language. To me it reads like a PR firm tacked on unrelated qualifiers at the end of every sentence. Should this article be reviewed? Or at the least have a template warning of these problems? Is this bad enough for a complete rewrite? I'd like more feedback.
--MirandaStreeter (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose to close RfC MirandaStreeter thanks for posting and welcome to Wikipedia. An RfC is not the correct process in this case because there is no dispute. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you, so if you see problems then you can fix them if you like. You can tag the article if you like with Template:Weasel or any other problem template listed there. Anyone can review this, and anyone can rewrite it. When things are good on Wikipedia they tend to stay good. This article has never been good though, and needs someone to get it there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Article -- I recommend that the article be deleted. It's not really anything legitimate, it's not encyclopedic. Damotclese (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Damotclese What is the basis for saying this organization is not legitimate? It is a registered 501c3. The article may have issues given the way it is written, but there are plenty of reliable sources that refer to it. I see no reason to delete it.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
After examining many of the citations and references I would also add that the article is propaganda, advertising, and verges on the edge of fraudulent advertising. Many of the references and citations are links to fraud web sites that seel to swindle rubes, marks, and suckers out of money. On the whole this article is at core a pack of lies and propaganda with an eye toward taking money from gullible people. Damotclese (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Damotclese Never mind that I asked. It clearly warrants and article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What? The bot sent me. What are we being asked to decide, please? EllenCT (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that there are problems with the page, some have to do with need for updating, for example, the funding of terrorism began as a controversy or allegation, but confining it to that section of the page is no longer appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Vision International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on World Vision International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Vision_International/Archive_1&oldid=1191605908"