Talk:Rettet die Naturvölker

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Very poor writing--very confusing statements (especially in the "Mission" section--needs a major rewrite). It may be possible that the article was originally written by someone whose first language is not English. รัก-ไทย (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "possible". It is right there on the user's categories, found at his profile. Is it also possible that a user's christian belief may interfere with his ability to make a proper review? If you find that section confusing, I suggest you check with the source provided in the reference section. My writing on wikipedia has been extensively reviewed for some years, and this article in particular was checked a couple of times (including by yourself). I don't know if this means anything, but it's not the first time that I find a christian with a hard time swallowing some of these concepts. There really isn't much we can do through the article. I ask that you be a little bit more constructive about what you would like to see changed. Maybe it is hard to accept some of the statements expressed, but they are the organization's own perspective, and we have to be very objective in its description.

Even though there was no constructive suggestion, I'm going to try to improve the article. But I cannot change that much. The section "mission" is essentially a "collage" of essential statements found on the organization website manifesto. We cannot really go much beyond or beneath this, under penalty of violating wp:or.

I can understand that stating that the threat to indigenous people stems from the "culture of violence and standardization within the western world" is being somewhat vague. We need to define this "culture" in order to understand the cause of wrongdoing described. But we cannot go into this on the article without breaking OR. This is their statement. For me, it is very clear of what are the principles involved. If anyone here is looking for the contradictory, they will have to do some research on these issues. I think this is standard. Otherwise, I can't find any facts that have been obscured by the presentation of the text, in the same way that is suggested in the link of the added tag for clean up. Maziotis (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN[edit]

Who is the "they" that tried to hack the website, IP editor or editors? This is Wikipedia, not your website, nor a place where you provide advertising content for an "official listing". You have repeatedly reinstated unsourced claims about your group, and some of the sourcing is actually rather odd - a claim about branches in various countries seems to be a book about "Safari Adventures"[sic]. There's a lot that doesn't seem to make sense here, and it seems to me that paring this down is the only encyclopedic approach. There is no reason to have anything here that is not sourceable to a reliable, third-party source, and right now we're supposed to just take the word of a dynamic IP for all of this. If you are an official with this org, you can contact me, or another admin, or the WP:OTRS system about it if there are serious concerns. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corbie Veccan,

Yes you are talking to an official of the organization friends of Peoples close to Nature (fPcN-interCultural). We don't know who changed the content recently. Just a few weeks ago the article was alright. The organization is not only operating from Germany but also from Kenya and other countries. I saw somewhere that you claimed that a website in Kenya had a warning - which one?

Please note that the former organization Freunde der Naturvoelker (FdN) who renamed themselves now as Rettet die Natuervoelker (RdN) is no longer permitted to operate as the German section of fPcN-interCultural. fPcN is UN accredited while FdN / RdN is not.

For any clarification and in the spirit to improve the presence of fPcN on WikiPedia kindly send an e-mail to collective@fPcN-global.org

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.81.107.113 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but none of us are going to email you about editing Wikipedia on behalf of your organisation. That is not our job. All of us, including sysops like myself, are volunteers. All content must meet the criteria of this encyclopida. Please go to the main page of the site and familiarize yourself with basic policies. Better yet, create a user account - one account per person - and we can post policies for you there. Also, as officials with the organization, you have Conflict of Interest. You may only suggest changes on this talk page. Aside from reverting vandalism, you should not edit the article itself. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous content did meet the criteria, now it does not. We have no Conflict of Interest and can proof it. The group Freunde der Naturvoelker e.V. (FdN) who renamed themselves into Rettet die Naturvoelker e.V. (RdN) is no longer permitted to operate as the German section of fPcN-interCultural. fPcN is Un-accredited, while FdN/RdN is not.

Our website www.fpcn-global.org was hacked and will be relaunched soon, if that is what you mean by stating misleading "deadlink".

Would appreciate if you revert the site to the status before 07.June 2017 and then we can cooperate if you need more references.

In the moment the changes made are not correct.

fPcN-collective

You just stated you have a Conflict of Interest. If English is not your first language, please get assistance with that. This article needs third-party sourcing, not more information from you personally. We cannot reinstate claims you have made about yourself without further third-party sourcing. Please post appropriate third party sources on this talk page so other editors can evaluate them. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]