Talk:SOS Children's Villages – USA

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

I have permission from the organization to use the content on the SOS Children's Villages - USA Wikipedia page. They have reviewed the content that will be taken from their site and have read through the Wikipedia policy here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission)and said it's fine to use the content. If need be I can put the editor in contact with the organization to confirm they have given permission to use their content.

Flowanda: "removed unsourced content; non-profit orgs require sourcing and notability". All of this information is present on the the [1] website. I have received permission from the organization to use the content and I was not allowed to do so until I could find other sources that support the claims made on the SOS-USA website. What is your purpose for removing the content from this page? If you claim the information is unsourced, yet it is all present on the website and in many other places, what are you talking about? I have provided references on all of the articles, but they have all been removed. Can you please provide proof that what has been placed on this article is in fact unsourced? -- Etaige (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda's removal is in keeping with our policies and guidelines. A non-profit's own web site is not really sufficient verification that these people are supporters - reliable, third party sources (or potentially directly from the supporters' own publications) are the sort of thing that ought to be used for this sort of claim. In any case I wonder about the appropriateness of such a list in this article - it hardly seems like the most significant thing to say about an organization (or at least if it was the most significant thing I would wonder why we have an article at all). Third party sources that have taken a critical look at the organization would be much more helpful in fleshing out a decent article. -- SiobhanHansa 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]