This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kids Company article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I have noted various reliable sources just needs further expansion and clarification I am working on it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a load of new stuff. 2.97.114.10 ( talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Quite incredibly there is not one single reference to anything cited in this article.
There are no sources for any of the figures put forward in 'The Centers [sic]' section.
Amazingly there is no reference to any of the research mentioned in the 'Research' section.
Kids Company could take this article and use it, unchanged, as a publicity leaflet. Cannonmc ( talk) 10:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added a load of new stuff. 2.97.114.10 ( talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This article was either written by staff at Kid's Company, or was copy-pasted from their promotional materials. It uses highly subjective language (such as describing a garden as "beautiful"), at some points it is written in the first person ("our kids") and it makes no mention of the controversies surrounding the charity. Kid's Company is an important organisation in the UK and it should have a neutral and referenced article rather than a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.168.243 ( talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The introduction uses figures taken from the given source ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/15/how-kids-company-feeds-britains-hungry-children) but the figures seem to have originated with Kids Company.
This source ( http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/?ref=yfp) challenges the figures.
So the figures given are sourced but may still be incorrect. Perhaps a regular contributor to this article would like to reflect this.
JDE 78.150.4.76 ( talk) 18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Camila Batmanghelidjh uses "allegedly" for figures of children reached. The intro for the Kids Company article use "" for the word reaching but this qualifies reaching rather than the figure quoted.
JDE 78.150.4.76 ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@ JRPG You mean we can't say for sure, so must say "appears to be"? That's not the avoidance of doubt in my books. Selector99 ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@
DeCausa, I didn't for a moment claim that that's what Kids Company said. I cited the source saying that the charity was essentially no longer viable and were petitioning for a winding-up order. That's a court application. I cited the Daily Mail because it included a quote from the DTI (there's nothing wrong with using the DM on talk pages - particularly for direct quotes). I know what liquidators do and until they've done what they do, it's not for anyone to guess or predict their findings - not even the Independent. For all we know, a Official Receiver may find the charity is vailable if another organisation wishes to take it over and the Independent will have been talking tosh. At the very least the Independent was taking 2+2 and making 5.
Separately, I've now re-read the Wiki RS article and still disagree with you that the LSE research is not a RS 'because the Telegraph and Times HE said so. On questionable sources Wiki says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Unless your objection is some other part of Wiki RS, I am mindful to reinsert the LSE research as a RS. Selector99 ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this". You cited the Kids Company website in support. But there was nothing on the Kids Company website to support it. All it said was that the OR was to be appointed.That's insufficient to use to back up a claim that the OR "has yet to confirm [that the organization had inadequate reserves]". You've jumped to the conclusion that this is something that this OR will opine on. Liquidators won't necessarily publish "findings" in the way you seem to think. That's not the main purpose of a liquidation. It's simply a mechanism to repay the creditors by selling off the assets. Ideally, the liquidator would sell the organization as a "going concern" possibly with the existing name. That's generally unlikely at this stage (it would probably have gone into administration if that were on the cards) and more likely to be a piecemeal sale of assets. (Even if it does happen, it has no bearing on the validity of the Independent piece. The Kids Company legal entity would still go into liquidation. That means it leaves the old balance sheet behind and the assets would be owned by a new company with a brand new balance sheet, and without the old Kids Company's debts. The reserves position would be blank sheet - and it doesn't change the resason why Kids Company had to close.)
In August 2015, the Daily Telegraph criticised the company for paying £40k towards a "glowing" report by the LSE. What is there in the report that refers to (i) the Telegraph criticising it (ii) the payment of £40k (iii) that it's a "glowing"? You are effectively saying that the report supports the Telegraph criticism. I really can't be bothered to revert. DeCausa ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@
DeCausa I too have more fully replied at
WP:RSN
here. Chronologically, going by the current article, the LSE report was the first independent source identifying the charity's financial vulnerability in a published document. That alone merits its inclusion. I'm happy to remove other, later sources in favour of the first. Regarding the final sentence, I've pasted my entry from the Noticeboard below;
References
I predicted my edit on Camilla's latest exploits would be reverted. However, I think what the founder of Kids Company along with just under 10% of the charity's former staff are doing now, setting up a food/soup kitchen for vulnerable kids and young people, is noteworthy and worthy of mention in this article. However, with a few grown up kids of my own, I'm well aware of the persuasive tactic known in these parts as, 'wear the blighter down'. Generally involving incessant bickering. I'm more than happy to cede ground at times like this. I'd have to give a damn to be stirred to do more. Selector99 ( talk) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This article gives some details of the report by PWC. It appears to me that much of the article will have to be rewritten. JRPG ( talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Added stuff on Alan Yentob and John Podmore. 2.97.122.144 ( talk) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Much of this article deals with people. We should be using wp:Suggested sources#Current news and not as in some cases, Daily Mirror, Express or Mail. JRPG ( talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed this article from Category:London, as it was one of only two articles in that top-level category (the other one being London itself). The article is in Category:Charities based in London, which is the proper place. JRPG would you reconsider your revert, or explain why you think this article belongs in that category? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Kids Company. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Place2B is a charity established by Benita Refson. Batmanghelidjh was involved with The Place To Be, a project which was the inspiration for the subsequent charity. Batmanghelidjh continued to work with the project, funded by the charity. Batmanghelidjh wasn't replaced by Refson - Refson always headed the charity, until she was replaced in 2014 by Catherine Roche. Place2B is, and always has been, unconnected with Kids Company. There's no reason for it to be on the Kids Company page. Keri ( talk) 11:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The 36,000 figure is the one quoted by Kids Company, but many of the media and independent organisation reports since have hugely questioned this number. When Kids Company collapsed, despite being braced for an influx, London councils only found 1,692 London client records of children and adults - all already known to them - whilst in Bristol they could only find a further 175 clients. BBC News "The return of Camila Batmanghelidjh?" The number within the article is given some limited testing within the second section, but stating it in the header - and without post-collapse data either - seriously questions this article as encyclopedic. Rgds -- 79.67.43.220 ( talk) 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kids Company. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I find this judgement controversial, and added an edit
Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court, who has never had to work for a funded charity,
I think the high court reasoning leaves-out a common sense and widely-known problem with agencies like Kids Company that has been reported on Panorama. Kids Company epitomises problems with other government subcontractors who happen to be charities. They lied. About the founder's CV, about the number of clients, and about the severity of the clients' needs. The judge made a very narrow judgement about the existence of future plans for a balanced budget, but they relied on the other stats being true, and TV documentaries or the gut feeling of anyone who has had to work with such organisations being false. It is as serious a problem, I think, as the post office director and the Horizon scandal.
I think the high court reasoning gives too much weight to the need to find the kind of trustees I disapprove-of, as though the need to find trustees were reason-enough to excuse the ones at Kids Company with their fake stats and fake CV and big share of Department for Education funding.
I doubt the high court judge has ever used a service, paid-for by her taxes but delivered by a contractor such as Kids Company. I can't prove it but bet her linked-in profile shows that she has never worked for any such, so I wrote "who has never had to work for a funded charity", rather than "who has never used or worked for".
Someone who does a lot of unpaid subediting on a range of subjects from Afghanistan to cooking has sub-edited this page to remove my edit. Their page does not allow comment. I reverted it but the person is welcome to get in touch. brittaniabuckle at yahoo co uk will get me or comment here. I know it's tricky when people try to work as unpaid subeditors on subjects they're not interested in: they can miss things that are obvious if you are interested in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WantsToMakeThingsBetter ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kids Company article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
I have noted various reliable sources just needs further expansion and clarification I am working on it. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a load of new stuff. 2.97.114.10 ( talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Quite incredibly there is not one single reference to anything cited in this article.
There are no sources for any of the figures put forward in 'The Centers [sic]' section.
Amazingly there is no reference to any of the research mentioned in the 'Research' section.
Kids Company could take this article and use it, unchanged, as a publicity leaflet. Cannonmc ( talk) 10:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added a load of new stuff. 2.97.114.10 ( talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This article was either written by staff at Kid's Company, or was copy-pasted from their promotional materials. It uses highly subjective language (such as describing a garden as "beautiful"), at some points it is written in the first person ("our kids") and it makes no mention of the controversies surrounding the charity. Kid's Company is an important organisation in the UK and it should have a neutral and referenced article rather than a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.168.243 ( talk) 11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The introduction uses figures taken from the given source ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/15/how-kids-company-feeds-britains-hungry-children) but the figures seem to have originated with Kids Company.
This source ( http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/?ref=yfp) challenges the figures.
So the figures given are sourced but may still be incorrect. Perhaps a regular contributor to this article would like to reflect this.
JDE 78.150.4.76 ( talk) 18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Camila Batmanghelidjh uses "allegedly" for figures of children reached. The intro for the Kids Company article use "" for the word reaching but this qualifies reaching rather than the figure quoted.
JDE 78.150.4.76 ( talk) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@ JRPG You mean we can't say for sure, so must say "appears to be"? That's not the avoidance of doubt in my books. Selector99 ( talk) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@
DeCausa, I didn't for a moment claim that that's what Kids Company said. I cited the source saying that the charity was essentially no longer viable and were petitioning for a winding-up order. That's a court application. I cited the Daily Mail because it included a quote from the DTI (there's nothing wrong with using the DM on talk pages - particularly for direct quotes). I know what liquidators do and until they've done what they do, it's not for anyone to guess or predict their findings - not even the Independent. For all we know, a Official Receiver may find the charity is vailable if another organisation wishes to take it over and the Independent will have been talking tosh. At the very least the Independent was taking 2+2 and making 5.
Separately, I've now re-read the Wiki RS article and still disagree with you that the LSE research is not a RS 'because the Telegraph and Times HE said so. On questionable sources Wiki says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Unless your objection is some other part of Wiki RS, I am mindful to reinsert the LSE research as a RS. Selector99 ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this". You cited the Kids Company website in support. But there was nothing on the Kids Company website to support it. All it said was that the OR was to be appointed.That's insufficient to use to back up a claim that the OR "has yet to confirm [that the organization had inadequate reserves]". You've jumped to the conclusion that this is something that this OR will opine on. Liquidators won't necessarily publish "findings" in the way you seem to think. That's not the main purpose of a liquidation. It's simply a mechanism to repay the creditors by selling off the assets. Ideally, the liquidator would sell the organization as a "going concern" possibly with the existing name. That's generally unlikely at this stage (it would probably have gone into administration if that were on the cards) and more likely to be a piecemeal sale of assets. (Even if it does happen, it has no bearing on the validity of the Independent piece. The Kids Company legal entity would still go into liquidation. That means it leaves the old balance sheet behind and the assets would be owned by a new company with a brand new balance sheet, and without the old Kids Company's debts. The reserves position would be blank sheet - and it doesn't change the resason why Kids Company had to close.)
In August 2015, the Daily Telegraph criticised the company for paying £40k towards a "glowing" report by the LSE. What is there in the report that refers to (i) the Telegraph criticising it (ii) the payment of £40k (iii) that it's a "glowing"? You are effectively saying that the report supports the Telegraph criticism. I really can't be bothered to revert. DeCausa ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@
DeCausa I too have more fully replied at
WP:RSN
here. Chronologically, going by the current article, the LSE report was the first independent source identifying the charity's financial vulnerability in a published document. That alone merits its inclusion. I'm happy to remove other, later sources in favour of the first. Regarding the final sentence, I've pasted my entry from the Noticeboard below;
References
I predicted my edit on Camilla's latest exploits would be reverted. However, I think what the founder of Kids Company along with just under 10% of the charity's former staff are doing now, setting up a food/soup kitchen for vulnerable kids and young people, is noteworthy and worthy of mention in this article. However, with a few grown up kids of my own, I'm well aware of the persuasive tactic known in these parts as, 'wear the blighter down'. Generally involving incessant bickering. I'm more than happy to cede ground at times like this. I'd have to give a damn to be stirred to do more. Selector99 ( talk) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This article gives some details of the report by PWC. It appears to me that much of the article will have to be rewritten. JRPG ( talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Added stuff on Alan Yentob and John Podmore. 2.97.122.144 ( talk) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Much of this article deals with people. We should be using wp:Suggested sources#Current news and not as in some cases, Daily Mirror, Express or Mail. JRPG ( talk) 22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed this article from Category:London, as it was one of only two articles in that top-level category (the other one being London itself). The article is in Category:Charities based in London, which is the proper place. JRPG would you reconsider your revert, or explain why you think this article belongs in that category? Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Kids Company. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Place2B is a charity established by Benita Refson. Batmanghelidjh was involved with The Place To Be, a project which was the inspiration for the subsequent charity. Batmanghelidjh continued to work with the project, funded by the charity. Batmanghelidjh wasn't replaced by Refson - Refson always headed the charity, until she was replaced in 2014 by Catherine Roche. Place2B is, and always has been, unconnected with Kids Company. There's no reason for it to be on the Kids Company page. Keri ( talk) 11:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The 36,000 figure is the one quoted by Kids Company, but many of the media and independent organisation reports since have hugely questioned this number. When Kids Company collapsed, despite being braced for an influx, London councils only found 1,692 London client records of children and adults - all already known to them - whilst in Bristol they could only find a further 175 clients. BBC News "The return of Camila Batmanghelidjh?" The number within the article is given some limited testing within the second section, but stating it in the header - and without post-collapse data either - seriously questions this article as encyclopedic. Rgds -- 79.67.43.220 ( talk) 13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kids Company. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I find this judgement controversial, and added an edit
Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court, who has never had to work for a funded charity,
I think the high court reasoning leaves-out a common sense and widely-known problem with agencies like Kids Company that has been reported on Panorama. Kids Company epitomises problems with other government subcontractors who happen to be charities. They lied. About the founder's CV, about the number of clients, and about the severity of the clients' needs. The judge made a very narrow judgement about the existence of future plans for a balanced budget, but they relied on the other stats being true, and TV documentaries or the gut feeling of anyone who has had to work with such organisations being false. It is as serious a problem, I think, as the post office director and the Horizon scandal.
I think the high court reasoning gives too much weight to the need to find the kind of trustees I disapprove-of, as though the need to find trustees were reason-enough to excuse the ones at Kids Company with their fake stats and fake CV and big share of Department for Education funding.
I doubt the high court judge has ever used a service, paid-for by her taxes but delivered by a contractor such as Kids Company. I can't prove it but bet her linked-in profile shows that she has never worked for any such, so I wrote "who has never had to work for a funded charity", rather than "who has never used or worked for".
Someone who does a lot of unpaid subediting on a range of subjects from Afghanistan to cooking has sub-edited this page to remove my edit. Their page does not allow comment. I reverted it but the person is welcome to get in touch. brittaniabuckle at yahoo co uk will get me or comment here. I know it's tricky when people try to work as unpaid subeditors on subjects they're not interested in: they can miss things that are obvious if you are interested in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WantsToMakeThingsBetter ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)