Talk:The Children's Society
Latest comment: 5 years ago by DanielRigal in topic Just how much of this is not a COI ?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Children's Society 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name edit
The article says correctly "formally known as THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CHILDREN'S SOCIETY" and that is correct. I presume to write this note because in WP "formally" and "formerly" are all too often misused, the one for the other. The Society is now often called "The Children's Society" but it is registered with the longer, older name.--SilasW (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just how much of this is not a COI ? edit
I am alerted to a problem when 90% of the article reads like a mission statement from a fund raising brochure. Looking at the editing history confirms most of the content was written by a single editor who has not contributed to any other WP article! OK, a clean up is needed. Do we start by blanking the sections covered by the primary source references? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just stumbled over this article and... Wow! How has this been left like this for so long? If this was not a genuine registered charity I'd have it up for speedy deletion like a shot. I'll see what I can do about removing the obvious plagiarism and put some tags on the rest as I'm not up for completely rewriting it myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was closer to being a rewrite than I planned but I'm done now. I removed a lot of unreferenced and promotional guff. The style of some of what I removed was pretty blatantly the writing of an insider with an insider's perspective. The one section that is quite good is the History section. That could do with better references if anybody has any. Even better, it could be broken up into sections and expanded. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)