Talk:Oxfam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxfam article.
Article policies
Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Work in the UN?

So, what does Oxfam do in the UN? They're a NGO there, IIRC... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.162.104 (talk • contribs) 09:56, October 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Name "Oxfam"

The committee changed its name to its telegraph address, OXFAM, in 1965.

This is worth verifying. I have here two books of postage stamps from the 1960s, one of which carries an advert for OXFAM, dated November 1964. The other, dated September 1963, is bylined "Oxford Committee for Famine Relief" but uses the term "Oxfam" in the body copy -- so clearly the name Oxfam was already in use in 1963 if not before. Flapdragon 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] says that the name was in use before that, but wasn't adopted officially until 1965. --Batneil 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to put this, but here goes. The first line of the article reads... "Oxfam International is an international confederation of 13 independent non-governmental dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world" It seems to me that there is a word missing between governmental and dedicated. I'm not sure what it should be, or else i would have just fixed it. Help?

I've added the word 'organisations' because that seems to fit, and it's what was there a few edits ago. --Batneil 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising costs

Looking at the repeated claims by the anon IP 86.130.68.75, I think the best thing is to look up the numbers. Oxfam's 2004/05 budget details gives a total fundraising costs of 18.5 million pounds, with a net income of 154.2 million. In 2003/04 it was 18.9 million pounds and a net income of 93.2 million pounds Oxfam annual reports. This does not appear to support the claims made. Average Earthman 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Criticism'

Hi, I've deleted the 'criticism' section since there was no evidence that:

  • There actually is any criticism at all along the lines suggested, let alone any substantial body of such.
  • The criticisms are even remotely sensible, and to do with actual facts (as opposed to just being slurs).

The requests for citations have been there for some time, but nothing has been provided. Please reference any claims along these lines. Thanks. Breadandroses 14:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is odd. Actually anyone who reads the alternative sites/press or even the main newspapers in the UK for example would be very aware that Oxfam has been fiercely critiqued on a number of fronts, both by radicals, particularly for it's recent support for the Make Poverty History campaign after it became identified with Blair/Brown and for example on free trade. See for example 1, and by the right, for example for posing as a charity whilst being very political. Like many NGOs there are complicated issues here and a free ride on Wikipedia gives the wrong impression. MarkThomas 20:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Please go ahead and include any relevant criticism in a verifiable way, your entry based on reputable sources, including these sources. --LucVerhelst 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--

I've added a new criticism section. It's sourced, and focuses on the recent Oxfam vs. Starbucks. Feel free to add to it and/or make it better, but please don't delete it just because you like Oxfam. CarolinianJeff 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)CarolinianJeff


I must say I am surprised .No one has , to my knowledge, spoken to the obvious left wing focus in the name of winning a war on private property.This is an agenda driven organization.Either way.Do not blindly accept the "truth". Do the research first.Think for yourself!

[edit] Possible error on Date

Oxfam International, founded in 1995 I think it is false. See http://www.oxfam.org.uk/about_us/history/index.htm --Youssef 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your link gives the dates for Oxfam United Kingdom, the article is about Oxfam International. That international organisation was only established in 1995. Before this date, there was no common organisation for the different national Oxfams.[2]
Thanks for the input/attention, though ! --LucVerhelst 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. My mistake. Thanks for your comment.--Youssef 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem.
Actually, you're pointing to a weakness in the article. You're probably not the only one who got confused. I think it would be a good thing if it were clarified. --LucVerhelst 20:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Oxfam International

I'd like to propose a move for this article to Oxfam International.
Next to that we could create a new, small Oxfam article, that gives an overview of both Oxfam International and the 12 local organisations.
I believe this would clarify things.
What do you think ?

We could start with this text : (I copied it mostly from the present article.)

Oxfam is the name of a number independent, non-profit, secular, community-based aid and development organizations who work with local partners in over 100 countries worldwide to reduce poverty, suffering, and injustice.
==National organisations==
The twelve national Oxfam organizations are based in: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Quebec, Spain and the United States.
==Oxfam International==
There is a small Oxfam International secretariat, based in Oxford, UK, and the secretariat runs advocacy offices in Washington, D.C, New York, Brussels and Geneva.

--LucVerhelst 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxfam category

It might be an idea to create an Oxfam category to tie together things like Oxfam Australia, Walk Against Want, Oxfam bookshops and Trailwalker. Any thoughts? --Nydas 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm rather sympathetic towards that idea.
But I think you are going to encounter some resistance, because of the wild growth of categories. It would help if other inter- and multinational organisations also had a category of their own, but I don't seem to find any.
Would we reach the same result with a list ?
What category would you make Category:Oxfam a subcategory of ? --LucVerhelst 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The sorting of all these categories looks a little strange; Oxfam is more than just a Development Charity for example - it is frequently labelled an NGO, but on WP we have DC's as a subcategory of NGOs. All part of the rich random fabric of the Great Edit in the Sky. :-) Is there anything to stop us putting Oxfam directly in the category NGO? MarkThomas 20:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather have a category than a list: what would the list's title be? Having said that, the subcategory could be problematic. But why not just stick the category where Oxfam is now? --Nydas 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already been bold and directly linked Oxfam Australia (from which I’d linked the click-to-donate site Ripple), Oxfam Canada, and Oxfam Hong Kong from Oxfam's "see also" list. I, too, would like to see the various local and international articles connected in one way or another. --Kletta (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

The official version of Oxfam's history on their site 1 sounds a bit different to the way it's written here; it emphasises for example the role of the well known Greek scholar Gilbert Murray and does not specifically mention Quaker involvement. I have heard before that the Quaker thing is overblown.

"Among its founding members were Canon T R Milford of the University Church and Professor Gilbert Murray, a member of the national Committee and former Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford. The commitment of Cecil Jackson-Cole, a London businessman appointed Honorary Secretary in December 1942, drove the Committee’s work for many years. "


The first meeeting of the Committee was held at the Friends Meeting House in St Giles, Oxford. Quaker properties are often used for meetings by diverse liberal or progressive groups, but nonetheless the link is there. The original minutes of that meeting, hand written in a lined school notebook, still exist and are held by the Oxfam UK archive. It should be possible to establish, from the named attendees and apologies, how many of the original interested parties had Quaker connections. Oz naughten 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite interesting, yes. But the results of such a research could off course only be used on Wikipedia after they had been published in a reputable source first. See WP:OR. --LucVerhelst 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

On 26 January 2007 anonymous editor 193.133.69.201 deleted the entire Criticism section without an Edit Summary note or any comment about this major deletion. What's going on here? The criticisms, whether one agrees or not, were well sourced. Dwalls 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

23 feb - reinstated criticism section

Except that the footnoted references didn't come through. Can anyone fix this? Dwalls 22:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i dunno - the refs seem to be in teh text when you try and edit it - but not on the page.....anyone any idea?

It doesn't seem right to include under 'Criticism' Oxfam effort to have the next World Bank President appointed on merit, rather than hand-picked by George Bush. I propose to move that paragraph to another section. Any ideas? Bolocholo 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see how it is even really relevant to the article. Including every such Oxfam effort in such detail would make the article way too long.

[edit] Added advert template

I've added the advert template as in it's current form (June, 2007), the article appears overtly concerned with detailing Oxfam's mission and beliefs rather than objective facts about the organisation, which is what Wikipedia article's on organisations are meant to be focused on.

WHAT their mission consists of IS an objective fact, and being clear about what their mission consists in is EXACTLY the thing that Wikipedia is meant to be focussed on.Paul haynes (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentance "Oxfam believes that poverty and powerlessness are avoidable and can be eliminated by human action and political will." is extremely POV orientated and must be changed. While I'm sure Oxfam does have noble objectives, Wikipedia articles' need to distance themselves from being overtly focused from the organisation in question's point of view otherwise objective credibility is lost. The "mission and objectives" section in particular should be removed and replaced with a summary appearing in the article's introduction as is usual for an organisation's stated mission.

[edit] too far the other way

I'm not sure what the article looked like before, but now it seems to emphasise problems more than explaining what the organisation actually does, an obvious example of POV by omission/emphasis. I think the mission and objectives should be stated more clearly, though avoiding the Oxfam believes that poverty and powerlessness are avoidable..." style, as mentioned above. I know little about Oxfam and wasn't made much wiser, in fact, the best thing about the page is its links, which is not a compliment. Paul haynes (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section - large and discouraged

This looks like a really nice article - well done everyone for all your work. Just one comment - the criticism section does look rather large for the article (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Also, criticism sections are discouraged - see WP:CRITICISM; it's recommended to merge each individual criticism/issue into the article in its own space, where it can get neutral coverage of the good points too.

Many thanks, and well done on the article, Drum guy (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section - unclear sentence

The sentence:
The academics claimed that high certification costs and low wages for workers undermine claims that Fairtrade helps to lift producers out of poverty. These claims were subsequently dismissed.
is unclear. What claims were dismissed? The claims by the academics, or the claims that Fairtrade helps?

[edit] 17 Broad Street

Is this shop still in existence? Might be of worth to note it, unless I've missed it somewhere. There's definitely still an Oxfam shop in Broad Street, Oxford, but I don't know if it's the original. 86.152.175.116 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)