Talk:Ethecon Foundation

Soapboxing

I'm very concerned about this: [1]
Wikipedia is not a platform for accusing living people of committing atrocities. Don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice your comment here before I left the comments on your talk page, not that that would have made a difference anyway since your comment here gives no further info than your edit summary. So how would you propose rewording why the were chosen as the recipients of the award in a neutral manner? It is not helpful to the reader now that there is no indication whatsoever as to why they were chosen. I still fail to see why we can attribute the 2010 award to the oil spill, yet we are not permitted to state why Ethecon chose to award the 2007 award. Freikorp (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

.......so how about about rewording for people who cannot tell the difference between facts and an award by specifying that "the award was presented on the grounds they proliferated contaminated baby food, monopolised water resources, and tolerated child labor." ? Freikorp (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That, too, treats the allegations as facts. The inability to distinguish between facts versus Ethecon's statements may be more widespread. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well once again i'll ask you, what's your suggestion then? As I keep stating, it is not particularly helpful to the reader to have no indication whatsoever as to why an award was presented. I'm all open to considering alternate wording; I don't feel that reverting my edit twice (ignoring my justification the second time) and then rejecting my compromise without suggesting any form of alternative is particularly constructive in resolving what is clearly a contested issue. Freikorp (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say you are not being very helpful in resolving this issue. Since you do not reply to my requests for a compromise on the talk page my only course of action is to be bold. Freikorp (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing WP:BLP violations is helpful. Reinserting them is unhelpful. "Compromise" does not mean repeatedly reinserting coatrack. bobrayner (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, "Compromise" does not mean repeatedly reinserting material, that's not what I was referring to when i suggested compromise. I have made it abundantly clear that I am open to your suggestions for alternate wording. Reinserting material is simply the only option you left me with, as you repeatedly ignore each and every one of my arguments and suggestions. How many times do I have to ask you to suggest a compromised wording? I have asked in good faith on two separate occasions now, waiting well over a week on each occasion. How many times do I have to explain that stating who won an award without giving any indication as to why is not particularly helpful? I have been trying to resolve this for almost a month now. I accepted your first reversion of my edits, despite its juvenile and condescending language. I made a case for my point in good faith, which you simply ignored: [2] On August 5 I asked you So how would you propose rewording why the were chosen as the recipients of the award in a neutral manner? This again, was completely ignored by yourself. On August 18 I again asked you for your suggestion on wording, which you ignored. Yet when I come up with alternate wording on my own, it is reverted and I am accused of deliberate BLP violations. Your arrogance is simply amazing. Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One editor attempted to add an explanation for why two recipients received their nomination. The other editor reverts their attempts, but will not respond to repeated requests for compromise on the talk page. 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm quite open to a compromise which complies with policy. However, treating award statements at face value, as criticisms of their recipients, is neither a compromise nor policy-compliant. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the fifth time, can you please suggest wording that is compliant with policy? I think it is helpful to the reader to have some idea of why the recipients were nominated. Freikorp (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The current wording seems to be compliant with policy, because it shows that specific people got the award, without repeating any of Ethecon Foundation's rants about those people. bobrayner (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes but it gives no indication whatsoever as to why they were nominated. It's like saying someone was nominated for an academy award but refusing to say what movie they worked on or what the award is for (acting/special effects etc). Obviously the Black Planet award is for something perceived to be negative by the award nominator, regardless of whether others would agree with them or not (just like the academy award is for something perceived to positive by the academy, regardless of whether all critics would agree with them or not), but the reader deserves at least a clue as to what the nomination was for. The 2010 award states BP received their nomination for the Deepwater horizon oil spill. Ideally i'd like this to be the standard, to have an explanation of sorts for each and every award, i'm just trying to resolve this one first so I can see what is going to be accepted. Freikorp (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with bobrayner. The general description of the Black Planet Award makes it clear what the general point of the award is, and we definitely can't include one group's accusations as if they were fact without violating WP:BLP. It does feel like a coatrack situation if we follow the lead of this group and let them write up an enemies list for us. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The bot sent me. I strongly agree with Freikorp providing WP:COMPREHENSIVE critiques of corporate malfeasance. WP:BLP does not apply because corporations are not living people. They are groups with limited de facto and de jure liability who can not sue for libel or slander in the U.S., especially in the face of documented grounds as are clear in this case. Not only does the WP:NPOV policy mandate that both sides of corporate behavior be reflected, good and bad, but WP:LEAD requires that major controversies be represented in the introduction of articles, not just the body. I intend to restore the deleted text in a way which makes it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse the views of the article's subject. The idea that experienced editors would think that "Wikipedia's voice" could be mistaken in this way is incomprehensible to me. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but not all the winners are corporations. Some are individual people and those are the entries in contention. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The bot sent me too. Something is amiss here, with this award, or with the organization. It seems that Diane Wilson, winner of the 1st Blue Planet award, is ALSO the deliverer of two or more Black Planet Awards, to Xe and the Taiwanese company (she flew to Virginia and Taibei to hand deliver each). Note that her name is prominent in the article sources as well. The source of the 2008 award to Xe is merely a huge quote of a press release by Ethecon. It isn't clear who does what, i.e. Code Pink, Black Planet, Ethecon:

Diane Wilson—author of An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas, Holy Roller: Growing Up in the Church of Knock Down, Drag Out; or, How I Quit Loving a Blue-Eyed Jesus and founding member of Code Pink—made a special delivery this month. She walked right up to Erik Prince, owner of the infamous corporation Blackwater... (and since outed, re-named “XE”), and handed him his prize for…Worst Company of the Year. Along with Code Pink activists... Wilson hand-delivered the prize and Open Letter to Erik Prince’s front door in McLean, Virginia. Formally called “The Black Planet Award”—and designed this year by a German grassroots foundation, Ethecon— the award targets the practices and persons behind XE..."

via Code pink awards Blackwater Black planet Award

The award does target people, see bold font above. Whose award is it, Code Pink's or Ethecon's?
I believe that Xe-Blackwater is an appallingly evil organization that supports despotic governments and even exploits mercenaries. They recruit poor men from South America, give inadequate training, then send them half way around the world to die, while making a profit. Regardless, Diane Wilson shouldn't be using Wikipedia to help facilitate funding of her mission, which is what this resembles. I hope that she didn't deceptively convince some kindly German people with money as financial backers.
The entire article needs source checks. It has lots of grammatical errors too. I have the same concerns as bobrayner, and Torchiest too, about this article.--FeralOink (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the sources. Many are from ChelseaGreen.com. What is that? Is it okay vis à vis NPOV req's? A better source cited, Alternet, said Diane Wilson flew to London for the Black Planet Award in 2010. It says she was with a group of Louisiana Gulf Coast residents, describes how each was genuinely harmed by the oil spill, but doesn't say anything about Diane other than this,

Though denied access, the Gulf Coast residents were not silenced. Diane stood in the lobby and pulled out her award for Dudley: a globe, which she then doused in black “oil.” She was surrounded by photographers, TV cameras, and police who detained her until the meeting was concluded. Tracy, Mike, Byron, and Bryan, meanwhile, were swarmed with press. When BP offered to let one of them in, they said “all or none.”

Article needs source checks!--FeralOink (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• The 'bot sent me. As a general rule when proposed text does not badly violate various Wikipedia traditions, more information is better than less so long as the information is encyclopedic, informative, and can be verified with citations and references. The proposed text offering descriptions of why the awards were given seems entirely appropriate to me and the editor who continues to undo the proposed change should either refrain from reversing the edit or must explain his or her reasoning for doing so. My opinion: Permit the proposed text. Damotclese (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Damotclese said,

As a general rule when proposed text does not badly violate various Wikipedia traditions...

That is rather subjective to use as a basis for making decisions. If proposed text violates one or more Wikipedia policies, it is unacceptable. Wikipedia tradition is a nebulous term. Again, degree of badness in violating such is not a good precedent. I am not being absolutist, but this isn't convincing justification, i.e. IF something does not badly violate Wikipedia tradition, THEN it is acceptable?--FeralOink (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I was invited randomly by a bot to participate. This RFC us unlikely to result in consensus since it is poorly structured. A proper RFC should be an attempt to get outside input, not a way to draw more people into the dispute. I recommend stopping this process, opening a new section with a proper RFC starting with a simple, neutral question, a "Survey" subsection for responses by participants with clarifying questions but without argumentation, and a "Comment" subsection for further discourse. Jojalozzo 03:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree this RFC is highly flawed. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A Word About 'Soapboxing'

There has been some useful commentary by editors about "soapboxing" and the supposition that accuratly covering details about an individual's, governmental agency's, or corporate entity's activities constitutes "soapboxing." I must disagree with this classification since Wikipedia is intended to be, well, encyclopedic, and provided details about someone's or something's behavior and activities (provided there are testable, falsifiable references and citations to support the information) is wholly appropriate.

Also Wikipedia rules and guidelines are intended to be guidelines which assist editors in providing a useful volunteer-created product used around the world, so even if discussing a living person's policies, practices, behaviors, and actions were to violate Wikiepdia traditions, when such information is accurate, referenced with testability, and the citations are solid, guidelines against covering truthful attributes of a living individual gain less weight than the desire for encyclopedic information.

Of course there is always motivations by editors to wish to avoid having information covered, either due to religious, political, ideological, or financial reasons. At the same time there are editors who wish to underscore certain behaviors and activities motivated by their own hobby-horses. Contention arises yet the resolving issue should be whether the proposed text being discussed has valid references to support them.

Also an editor who disagrees with proposed text should never just reverse an editor's text without explanation or without discussing it first. Everyone is a volunteer, after all, and we don't wanr rude behavior to stop very valuable editors from contributing to the project. Damotclese (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability

If our only source for what Ethecon actually does is a blog, how notable is this foundation? bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not notable. The references below the article are to various degrees broken, self referential, or cite sources such as blogs. The article contains garbage such as "This first – and until now only – foundation critical of globalization and corporations ". It's not the first, and it's not the only organization critical of globalization or corporations. In short, this entire page is nothing but soap-boxing that links to a self-referential blog network. The entire article should be deleted. Kim.mason (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'm not one for throwing out the baby with the bathwater, rather than putting effort in to improving something. As I have also mentioned at your nomination to delete this article, I have now fixed all broken links. I have also removed what was indeed an unsupportable statement, as well as some questionable sources. Sources that remain include The Guardian, AlterNet, Die Tageszeitung, Der Freitag, Neues Deutschland, Junge Welt and Chelsea Green Publishing. I don't think you can accuse them of being a "self-referential blog network". Damien Linnane (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)