This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
I've just read the comment about the COI, and was wondering about the significance of the following sentence: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Could please someone help me and specify the meaning of "major contributor"? I will follow Fæ's advice and rather write an article about Jacques-Edouard Berger instead of having the article about the foundation. Indeed I find it hard to dig up relevant sources (except for the catalogue mentioned: "JEB, Un regard partagé", not sufficiant and probably leding to a COI!!). Could you please advise? Many thanks in advance.
I'm not an administrator, but this question doesn't seem to need a response from admins in particular (if you do want such a response, use {{adminhelp}}). A "major contributor" would be someone who was adding facts, rearranging the article, creating it, etc., rather than merely fixing typos or doing things like categorization. (I think you probably count as a major contributor to this article; you wrote over 90% of it, according to the history.) The major problem with conflict of interest is that it's hard to write neutrally about something you're personally involved in (often entirely subconciously); it helps to write from sources (or if you can't find them, re-purposing the article instead may make sense; it may be that the subject is too narrow or specific to be verifiable).
I'd suggest that it probably would make sense to write about the person, rather than the foundation; the foundation looks more like it should be mentioned as a couple of sentences in the article, because there's not really much more you could say to expand this article otherwise. --ais523 11:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
