Talk:Shared Hope International

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.sharedhope.org. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2009120110063991. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Is there truly no free-content material on the page worth saving? In an effort to clearly represent an organization's work, I believe it is neccessary to include the mission statement of the organization. Perhaps I did not cite this properly; that can easily be remedied. I have never visited the site http://www.badasf.org/slavery/modernslavery.htm until today, and the only reference to Shared Hope International on that page was a single sentence which also included the organization's mission statement. If that is the sole reason for the proposed deletion of the article, I do not believe that is valid. Shared Hope International is an international, reputable, notable organization and I believe that I have documented that in the article. If there are other reasons, or suggested improvements that can be made, I appreciate any explanation. Thank you for understanding as I continue to work on and update this article. If copyright permission is needed, I will proceed through the appropriate channels. Karinandrew (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually shows substantial copypasting from the organization's website. For example, the entire "prevent" section is copied directly from this page, even though it lists references to other sources. This is a copyright violation, against WP policy, and therefore unacceptable. However, I have replaced the speedy deletion request with a copy violation report template which will allow 7 days for the article to be corrected to remove any copyright infringement. Please use this page (which is linked on the template) if you wish to recreate the article without the CV issues. Other remedies are listed in the message that I left on your talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am currently working on getting permission to use the material as is, if this fails, I will work on re-writing the page. Karinandrew (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll make a note of that at the report page. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Shared Hope for the copyright license and have received a positive response, which I forwarded to the permisssions department at Wikipedia. Once they approve it, will my page go back to the way it was, or do I need to do something else? Thanks! Karinandrew (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Once permission has been verified by the OTRS office, a notice will be placed on this talk page and an administrator will remove the article's "Possible Copyright Infringement" template. It will be back in the original form. However, please remember that, regardless of the permission to use the specific text from Shared Hope, that text will still need to meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability and neutral point-of-view. (For example, the language should be changed so as not be promotional, "spammy" or contain peacock wording). If you need help with that, there are plenty of editors who can jump in to make those corrections. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing requirement may have been satisfied, but this leaves *huge* NPOV issues. The page reads as an advertisement for SHI and blatantly takes its side of the "sex trafficking" controversy. Not surprising since article content is essentially a cut-and-past job from the organization itself. I'm tagging the article for NPOV. This tag needs to stay up until the article has been substantially rewritten from a neutral point of view. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]