Talk:Operation Smile

Point of view and sources

As it stands, this article appears to be drawn in very large part from the organization's own publicity materials (chunks are in fact verbatim from its website; the section headed "Our achievements" is something of a tip-off). In addition, the article does not include any material on the questions that have occasionally been raised regarding the organization's work, especially in a series of articles in the New York Times in 1999-2000. Robertissimo 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted (geordan)'s comment because it used offensive language and made some serious but unsubstantiated negative claims; I deleted the anonymous comment re: the 40% stat because no source was cited, it was negative, and it was unsigned. (See the Talk Page Guidelines if you've got an issue with either of these changes.) I understand editing for veracity and neutrality, but some of the stuff on this page was plain defamatory. Let's keep it clean, folks. Re: Robertissimo's note above, a quick read of the current page makes clear that it has been addressed. --MingusFace 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the source cited for the 40% statistic was the organization's tax return. Does that not qualify as a source? Both the totals on how much is spent on administration and fund raising, and the salaries of executives may be found on the publicly available tax returns for all US non profit organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.181.89.93 (talk • contribs)

The figures may or may not be true, but they definitely need to be traced to a reliable source per WP's guidelines on attribution. As MingusFace notes, the article is somewhat better than when I first commented above last October, but it could still use considerable improvement, especially when it comes to sourcing and rigorous neutrality. Robertissimo 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. How would you suggest one correctly attribute the figures. They appear on the organization's tax returns, which are included as pdf files on their own website - so the source itself would be Operation Smile. Do I need to make a hyperlink to the page?

I'd say that a link to the return and a reference would suffice. But in the interest of neutrality, it would be best to contextualize the statistic - i.e., is it a blip on the radar, or symptomatic of a larger trend toward largesse by the organization? If it's not representative of their expenditures over the longer term, that should be noted -- ideally, if one is quoting a numeric statistic, the relevant context would also be a numeric statistic. "In 2005, the organization reported spending 40% of its revenues on XYZ [source]. Over the past (five, ten, twenty, etc.) years, this figure has been at the XX% level [source]. Relative to other organizations its size, the average is XX% [source]... The organization attributes these costs to XYZ. [source]" and so forth. Also, please sign your comments - it's a matter of courtesy. --MingusFace 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it occur to anyone else that this page is looking more and more like a blatant replication of the organization's website? It reads like an online advertisement; I am only surprised that the authors have not included a link for donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.2 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Financial information in the article?

Why is the salary of the founders in the article? It's not clear what this brings to the article -- as a reference article on the organization, the particulars of the salary (in this case, unreferenced) seem out of place. Thoughts? 842U (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the high salary of the CEO and Founder of a non-profit, and the very high percentage of the organization's cash income that is spent on salaries, administration and advertising are extremely valid facts to include in this article. If people want to read the organization's own website and their own perspective on their work, they certainly may. This should be a venue where fuller information is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.51.32 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is a place for reference articles based on verifiable, credible information. It's not a place to make personal, unverifiable arguments.

For financial information to belong in the article, it needs to be comprehensive, and from reliable, reputable and independant third parties that have financially "graded" not only this organization, but others as well.

The article currently only contains two pieces of financial information, neither of which are comprehensive and neither of which come from independent, verifiable sources.

In the mean time, who gets to decide what is a "very high" percentage? Who is making the claim that the percentage is "very high" and what credentials and qualifications do they have to make that judgement? Do they have an axe to grind? Are they anonymous?

Anonymously sourced financial "information" is exactly the slippery slope that a Wikipedia article is not designed to accomodate. An anonymous contributor could easily tilt the article into an opinion piece.

But the information in question remains in the article for the time being. Let's have more discussion on the subject of how best to include or not include this information in the article. 842U (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Source for the financial information is the organization's own 2006 tax returns - publicly available documents. As for the judgment on what is "very high" levels of overhead, the Federal Government will not include groups that spend 25% or more on overhead in their Combined Federal Campaign. The Better Business Bureau sets a much more lenient level of 35% for inclusion in their list. United Way also restricts giving to groups with high percentages of overhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.51.32 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Though it is a moot point now cause neither Bill nor Kathy takes compensation from organization. Operation Smile 990 Form for the year ending June 30, 2007 http://www.operationsmile.org/docs/990_2006.pdf 24.126.31.11 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"neither Bill nor Kathy"? c'mon, at least go to the effort of pretending you aren't representing the organization when you post here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the tax forms. I find these really very useful. That said, they claim to do surgery for $245, but on there tax form they say they spent $39 million last year and did 2790 surgeries. By my math, that works out to something like $14,100 per patient... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

A good example of biased financial information: in the last post, an anonymous user (of unknown accounting credentials) suggests that by dividing the total income of the organization, the "cost per surgery" can be determined -- without regard for the other functions the organization performs. Is this user predisposed to find, highlight and then post negative comments here? What are the user's credentials? Is this user serving a NPOV? What "position" is this poster serving?

Shall we let anonymous negativity characterize the discussion? No. See see WP:Talk. There are rules and there are guidelines for Talk pages.

The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. If you want to give your thinly veiled opinions about the organization, the appropriate place is not Wikipedia. Attempts to use the article or this discussion page as a platform to pontificate about the subject of the article won't be tolerated.

Please see WP:CIV and AGF before making any derogatory accusations of other posters; please assume good faith. Please see WP:Talk for more information on how to use a Talk Page.

In the meantime: communicate, keep on topic, be positive, stay objective, deal with facts, share material, discuss edits, make proposals.

The purpose of the discussion here is try to determine what financial info belongs in the article -- if any. It's clearly tricky territory. Small pieces of financial information can easily be made to look damaging or favorable by not giving financial context.

If there is going to be a judgment associated with the financial information, then that judgment need come from an unbiased editorial source. If we find a reputable, third party source, then let's include the info. If we don't, let's be very, very careful about including un-balanced financial information.

Let's move toward an article that projects a neutral point of view on the subject. 842U (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

842U, I wanted to discuss your issue with posting data on Operation Smile's subsidiary Foundation, but it appears that you've been blocked from posting for sockpuppetry... 42ofcourse (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The implication of elaboration? what was posted was a direct quote from the BB site. Not really bothered that you made the edit, though, if you feel the listing is now more neutral. Happy to see your account was re-activeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42ofcourse (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, serious and negative statements

A few posts here recently have been of an attacking nature, and there are several recent anonymous posts to the article that either are vandalism or border on vandalism.

Again, Wikipedia is about neutral information; let's see what we can do to keep the article neutral and civil.

We can also consider locking the article to prevent vandalizing contribs by anonymous posters. 842U (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how quoting a sentence out of a New York Times article that has been referenced by another user can be termed attacking, or vandalizm? The article in question is currently spun to create one impression, but you refuse to allow the criticism that exists in the article to be highlighted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably have assumed more good faith on your part, but you're writing anonymously and it appears that your sole interest is to highlight the negative. If you really want to introduce the information to the article, then don't overstate anything, be careful to avoid weasel words and do the work to put in your own citations for the delicate information you introduce.

Otherwise, it's possible to carelessly defame someone. To do so repeatedly -- that's either vandalism... or very close to it. Consider also "coming out of the closet" and making your contributions without anonymity and your motives and goals will be more transparent.

The NYT article does not say anyone "refused" to release the review, it says they promised to release the info and then changed their mind. It's important not to overstate something that could be construed as libelous. The article does cite that "some board members" left "in frustration" and it quotes specifically one. There's a bit of weaselly writing there. Don't rely on footnotes elsewhere in the article to support your information. Ad your own. Support your contribution with its own verifiability -- especially if you are going out on a limb to spotlight very sensitive information.

The article now has been expanded to elaborate on the particular instance -- just taking more care to cite the NYT article, using quotation marks around some of the more sensitive portions of the phrasing -- and eliminating negatively charged words like "refused." This part of the article now includes more pertinant information without overstating details.

If there's anything else that has been "spun to create one impression," be specific, and we can fix it.842U (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is the 'we' that can fix this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 42ofcourse (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We? That would be this user and you. Don't forget to sign your posts... to avoid the embarrassment of the robot doing it for you! 842U (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that its possible, to allay concerns that anyone "refuse(s) to allow the criticism that exists in the article to be highlighted," this user previously had added the one new reference to this section of the article that's been added in the last year, the Guardian UK article. In addition, this user today added the November 25, 1999 NYT article to the reference list, and also made the citation for the November 24, 1999 NYT an actual link vs. just a reference to the date and authorship of the article -- making it easier for any one to follow through on the source information for the section of the article. 842U (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Just converted the Dec 30 2002 Virginia Pilot article to a direct link reference, rather than just a citation of the article's date, author and publisher: this makes it easier for a reader to read an entire source document. 842U (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that user 842U, who speaks of others "avoiding the embarrassment of the robot" signing posts must now suffer the indignity of being banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. It makes one wonder how many of the posters above are his creation...42ofcourse (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that user 842U was welcomed back to Wikipedia after promising not to engage in sockpuppetry, and the editor seems to be contributing significant amounts of good content. - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Flags

I've removed the field of flags from Smile Train. It seems like it would be a headache to constantly maintain, and conceptually it doesn't inherently add any more info than saying "more than 80 countries". Would a similar removal of flags be appropriate for this article? - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

I've created this account to suggest uncontroversial, unbiased edits to articles related to Operation Smile. I do not intend to make any direct edits to Operation Smile's article or entries. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of Operation Smile and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to Operation Smile's article, hopefully leading to a much improved and complete article. I would like to suggest adding the following to the Financials section of this article to reflect the organizations most updated financials:

"Operation Smile received $93,351,353 in revenue in fiscal year 2016. 76.3% of the revenue was allocated to Programs, 16.2% to Fundraising and 7.1% to Administration."

Source Audited Financials: Apberniard (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The source given makes the statement seem promotional. Request declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Smile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hourofpower.org/interviews/bill.magee.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925042104/http://www.centuryfilmsltd.com/the-facemakers.htm to http://www.centuryfilmsltd.com/the-facemakers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)