Talk:Oxfam

on Oxfam Belgium

The bit "and also the person who provided the car for the Church Street bombing. Oxfam Wereldwinkels has also an agreement with the Union of Agricultural Work Committees to sell their products." doesn't seem to have valid sources? I cannot access link 39 and 40. 2A02:A03F:544C:7800:4015:635C:938C:A170 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "mission and values"

Is it normal practice for the "mission and values" claimed by an organisation such as Oxfam to be removed, as it was in this edit? The information was admittedly out of date, but it could readily be updated from the current site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with editor Viewmont Viking's removal of that content. That type of content is SELF-SOURCED WP:SPS and promotional. WP:PROMOTION It needs to be sourced from an INDEPENDENT, third-party source to be included in this article. Please see WP:IS and WP:MISSION. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not promotional - it is descriptive and falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. The essay at WP:MISSION is simply one editor's opinion, not guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It is PROMOTIONAL and PROPAGANDA. As an easy extreme example, if a white supremacist organization's mission was to "Maintain the clearly proven scientific superiority of the white race above all other inferior races." do you think that should be included in Wikipedia? That's why we use Independent Sources: Please read WP:IS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's mildly annoying to be advised of what I should read by someone whose been here fewer years than me, and has done many fewer edits. Any statement of an organisation's mission needs to be caveated by making clear that it is what the organisation claims, rather than being a factual neutral statement of what it does. There is a big difference. But an organisation's claims, if sourced, can be included per WP:ABOUTSELF. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Privileged white women" kerfuffle

I'm very late to the party, but I believe the controversy caused by Oxfam's leaked employee training slides in 2021 which blamed white women who report sexual assault for racism warrant a mention in the "Criticism" section, especially in light of their own sexual assault scandals. It was covered by reliable sources such as The Telegraph[1] and New Statesman[2]. --DannyC55 (Talk) 03:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"LGBT issues"

This subsection under "Criticism" implies that Oxfam was criticised due to handling LGBT issues poorly, but the context makes it obvious that the "criticism" is coming from the fringe "gender critical" types, and is due to Oxfam taking a stance against transphobia. Is it possible to change the heading so that it doesn't imply that Oxfam was in the wrong? 46.97.170.151 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The cartoon was considered offensive and inappropriate by a wide range of people, and the criticism certainly wasn't limited to fringe groups or even the broadly gender critical. Oxfam has a public image of doing good works in the global south, and this aggressively partisan political campaigning came as a shock to supporters. The furore has caused reputational damage, and Oxfam GB has submitted a serious incident report to its regulator. --Ef80 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I've expanded this section a little with extra detail and several more references. Given that Oxfam's apology (which I have also quoted from) explicitly references supporting people from LGBTQIA+ communities, I've changed the heading to the more neutral "2023 Pride Month video". — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Your changes are reasonable. I do think the 'gender critical' claim needs a specific ref though, as it implies that the offence caused was just the usual overheated LGBT identity politics, whereas in fact it was much more widespread than that. The concern within Oxfam isn't that JK Rowling will have been upset, but that their hundreds of thousands of largely apolitical donors will transfer allegiance to somebody else. Ef80 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen much evidence that it was much wider than GC activists, at least initially, with the "yellow peril" concerns being highlighted subsequently. The indy100 link supported the "primarily GCs" claim and I've added another that supports both that and provides another ref for the constructive dismissal case.

I hadn't seen anyone talking about any real quantity of donors transferring allegiance, only a few GC accounts on Twitter saying so. If you can find an RS to support that, it should definitely be added to the article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks for your work. Ef80 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Controversy 2015 study on net worth inequality

I do not agree on the following sentence: In this study, The Global Wealth Databook 2015, personal assets were calculated in net worth, meaning wealth would be negated by having any mortgages.

This is true only if the remaining mortgage is larger than the value of the house, so it is not true for any mortgage. Nyxpho (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sections of "criticism"

Hi @Avatar317

I'll explain why the sections in question that you've highlighted were removed.

On Ethiopia/Starbucks, the problem is that it's not actually a notable event of criticism aimed towards Oxfam. If you think it should be kept as an example of campaigning by part of the organisation I'll reinsert it elsewhere, but "criticism" is the wrong section for it.

On Charity Navigator, it's only supported by a single primary source so fails to show any notability as to an event of criticism about Oxfam.

Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Ethiopia/Starbucks should be relocated; it is validly sourced. Section headers get renamed sometimes and leave content that would belong elsewhere.

These should also be restored with the same reason as above: "Confrontation with Population Matters", and "Dole Food Company" (though this is probably a minor example of many types of statements that Oxfam makes and could be left out).

And the entire "Accusations of data manipulation" should be restored, those ARE criticisms of Oxfam.

The Charity Navigator is used frequently in other articles, but doesn't seem to have it's own entry like WP:SPLC, so it can be removed, I guess I was wrong on that one.

This is why I recommend that you make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. It is then easier to discuss with good edit summaries. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 I'll re-add the Ethiopia one, maybe have a section of "prominent campaigns".

On the others:

"Accusations of data manipulation" were removed because the "2015 study on net worth inequality" section was a single rebuttal by an opinion piece in a publication that hasn't been adjudicated to be reliable it appears and ""Profiting from Pain" report" is a single rebuttal by a primary source self-published blog (so similar problem).

On "Confrontation with Population Matters", that wasn't a criticism of Oxfam. Someone seemingly writing in their personal capacity that worked at Oxfam was then rebutted by the organisation.

Overall the problem I was trying to resolve (and will be making further edits to try and continue doing so further) is that the article is starting to go the way a lot of articles on Wikipedia tend to go when not maintained much, which is becoming listicles of "every time x was mentioned online" regardless of whether that specific incident is either seriously notable by itself or is a notable trend it exemplifies.

Regards, Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Confrontation with Population Matters: you are correct here, thanks for explaining that.

So for the overall problem you are trying to fix: how do you intend to do that? If Oxfam normally has 10 "actions" per year that it does... which classify as important enough? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a rule of thumb is going to have to be "was it a large enough/ran long enough to be memorable/impactful". So for Ethiopia and wider fair trade issues that would be a good subject line. However stuff where it's clearly only been notable for maybe a day or two churn and wouldn't be memorable to the average person should be left off. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach, thanks for clarifying! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 just to give you the heads up, I've reinserted the section on Ethiopia talked about. I've put it in the existing campaigns sub-section near the top of the page as an example of their campaigning. I was thinking about putting the 2007 Australian fair trade dispute there but given it boils down to "lobby group complained about them, this was later dismissed in court" I thought it's best removed given it's effectively dismissing itself as a source of criticism. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The removal of the 2007 Australian fair trade dispute sounds good, thanks for explaining your rationale. If Oxfam only had things like that lawsuit happen once or twice in the existence of the organization, it should be included, but this is likely something that happens often, and was dismissed anyhow, so to include it would be too much detail. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)