Comment by neilv

1. It's an organization. The organization is the one with the tarnished reputation.

2. The Wikipedia article is full of scandal. And I have never heard anything about the topic that's not scandal (except for this one very strange reference, which is the original point of this thread). I don't know why you're going to the mat to dispute that. But if you're not done, you'd be better off getting the Wikipedia article updated, because it's like you're derailing critical discussion with textbook sabotage tactics (whether or not that's intentional).