Talk:King's Trust/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stub

The Prince's Trust does a great deal of important work. However the article says very little about what it is. Can some one not expand this into a reather more substantial article? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PT concert

Silgni1 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)I was after information on the princes trust concert that happens in Hyde Park, anyone got anything on this?

Here: Party in the Park -- Ashley VH 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prince's Trust.gif

Image:Prince's Trust.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Note there is now a full rationale on the image page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary cut & paste from PT website

I have removed the table showing "Typical structure of a Team course" for a second time. This was reversed by another editor on the basis that it was not duplicated on the PT website and yet it is available here as a downloadable detailed chart. As the page is suffering from a wealth of cut & paste from the PT site already this seems to add little value (see WP:NOTMIRROR) and potentially falls foul of WP:Copyright.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Telegraphs article "Prince Harry's charity saved from crisis by Lord Ashcroft donation"

The following citation had been removed on the basis that it was not relevant:

• Andrew Pierce (2009-03-15). "Prince Harry's charity saved from crisis by Lord Ashcroft donation". Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-04-13.

However though the main text of this article is about Sentebale, the same article usefully provides an alternative source for the story of donations to Women2Win. The relevant text is that "Only last week Prince Charles's charity the Prince's Trust was criticised for making a donation to the Conservative Party. The £10,050 was channelled through the group Women2Win, which is backed by David Cameron and campaigns to get more women Tory candidates." On this basis I shall replace the source.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Prince's Trust accounts

I can't at the moment see where the Prince's Trust accounts are on the Prince's Trust site. They have an annual review on their site, but this is a different document, and as far as I can see the full accounts for each year, some 43 pages, are only on the charity commission site. TamaraStaples (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Annual Review on the PT site includes a summary of accounts towards the end of the document only for the financial year ending 2008. The Charity Commission site is shown in the External Links section for this reason and is a suitable source for citing published accounts from 2004 onwards, though the link does not immediately show the accounts (in my browser anyway) I have to click on one of the detailed links when there to make it show the yearly breakdown. I don't believe PT has any legal obligation to publish an archive of accounts on their website.—Ashleyvh (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, they don't have any legal obligation to publish their full accounts, but it is just that most of the financial commentary on this page relies on the detailed figures which are on the charity commission site. This is why I have referenced the charity commission reports, as best I can, as the source for most of the financial statements. TamaraStaples (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Reading this again, I think you may have originally been referring to my deletion of this link. I did remove the link under WP:DEADLINK as when I went to the site the accounts for the year referenced did not show up and I assumed the site design had changed. It was only after re-checking when you added the external link back in that I realized that it was necessary to click on menu links to get the accounts to show up. I have no issue with the site as a general source, thank you for persisting. I suggest when adding refs to particular annual accounts the Charity Commission can be referenced without a link leaving the reader to use the main external link, otherwise the same confusion may occur (i.e. clicking the link expecting to see the 2007 accounts but being faced with a blank form/search page instead).—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for YouTube channel

The External Links section includes the Prince's Trust YouTube channel. Normally the guidance for such links (see WP:ELNO) is that they are removed due to issues of copyright of video and the reliance on specific applications to play the media. In this case as the copyright is clearly that of the PT who have chosen to release the video on YouTube there would seem little issue with copyright. On the issue of applications, Adobe Flash is required and I have added text against the link so that a reader is aware before using the link. Considering the direct relevance to the topic this seems a valid exception to the guidance as this can be considered an "official" site of the PT.—Ashleyvh (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2004 concert?

Nothing about that in the article. Featured Trevor Horn himself, The Buggles (giving an outstanding live performance of "Video Killed..." after a whopping 25 years), Anne Dudley and many more. Did anyone miss to list that or was it on purpose? -andy 92.230.16.214 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As this page is more focused on the regular activities of the charity, details of the concerts are better placed on specific devoted pages that this article can then reference. Digging a little I found one source:

Design Week June 24, 2004
Gibson trumpets Horn's 25-year anniversary
Esteemed record producer Trevor Horn is to celebrate 25 years of work by releasing a 'greatest hits' compilation CD, with sleeve design and logotype by Gibson.
To coincide with the CD release on Horn's own ZTT Records, a line-up of Horn-produced artists will perform a concert at Wembley Arena in November, organised by ZTT parent company SPZ and in aid of the Prince's Trust.

Horn's musical credits include the 'Age of Plastic' album by The Buggles, which features the number one single 'Video killed the radio star'. He has also produced tracks for Frankie Goes To Hollywood and the Pet Shop Boys, as well as Band Aid's 'Do they know it's Christmas?'

Gibson's artwork will feature on the CD sleeve, tickets and posters for the concert and on an accompanying book written by Horn to chronicle his work over the years.

SPZ wanted a simple, iconic design, says Gibson creative assistant Ollie Korn. 'The idea we will develop uses iconic Trevor Horn imagery of headphones and glasses. The headphones cable will form the words "25 Years".'

The first use of the Gibson artwork will appear this July to promote the Wembley concert.

I am not familiar with the detail of this concert. Though described here as "in aid of" the PT, does this mean that the PT had a hand in organizing it? If not, it would not seem that relevant for inclusion and has already been included with sufficient detail in the article about Trevor Horn.—Ashleyvh (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent COI by user:The Princes Trust

I have reverted recent edits from the SPA The Princes Trust (talk · contribs) (see diff). The edits appeared to remove all critical statements about the Trust and included excessive cut & paste from the Trust's website which was turning the article into an advert for the Trust rather than an encyclopaedic entry. I don't disagree that some criticisms may be poorly sourced but some discussion should be given on this talk page before making sweeping and apparently biased changes. Further changes of this type without attempting to reach a consensus should be considered vandalism.—Ash (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Our recent edits were intended to supply more rounded information on The Trust’s programmes in order that disadvantaged young people might be able to benefit from our charitable support. The previous version did not accurately reflect the organisation, as a contributor (above) says: “This article appears to be very negative rather than factual, it should be completly rewritten by someone without such a negative attitude towards this charity which does a lot of good work.” We did not remove all criticism, despite much of it being from unreliable sources, including blogs. Instead, we aimed for a more balanced view, updating financial information from our newly published accounts. We are eager to gain concensus amongst the Wikipedia community, as we believe our edits created an entry closer to what may be considered an ‘encyclopaedic entry’ than what was there before. The Princes Trust (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to "supply more rounded information on The Trust's programmes", this is an encyclopedia, a link to the Trust's website is sufficient. See WP:SPAM.

The "contributor" you refer to was an anonymous IP editor and that comment has already been addressed above.

If you are eager to gain consensus, then discuss your edits rather than blanking criticism from the article.

You appear to be claiming to represent The Prince's Trust. Please stop doing so or demonstrate you are an official representative of The Princes Trust on your user page.

I have reverted your edits as vandalism for the reasons previously expressed that you have ignored.—Ash (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Per Ash's request on my talk page, I am going to explain every word of my changes to the article here.

1. Removal of leaving the Trust open to "cash for council" allegations": This line is sourced to two websites that may serve as sources for the first part of the paragraph, but certainly not this sentence. It is the author's personal opinion based on the actual, verifiable content.
2. Removal of He has never worked professionally with young people having only ever worked for his own company The Carphone Warehouse, and he has no experience of any other charitable work.: The citation for this line is Wikipedia itself. While Wikipedia's relaibility is not actually a matter of concern here, the problem is that there is a clear implication provided here that Dunstone is not qualified for the position. And since the source is Wikipedia itself, the source is inadequate for such a negative claim.
3. Removal of but not all of the money was spent on helping young people: No charity for young people spends all of its money on helping young people. This is redundant at best, and POV pushing at worst.
4. Removal of random words, just, actually: As with the above point, these are at best redunant words, and at worst used to emphasize some points over others to invoke the author's point of view.
5. Removal of So from a total income of nearly £45 million, less than £21 million was spent on directly helping young people, and just £1.71 million was provided in grants and loans to young people.: Summarizing and paraphrasing verifiable material is what makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not just a mirror of the internet, but it should be done without sounding like an accusation that the charity is not fulfilling its mission.
6. Removal of Prince’s Trust takes only a very small financial risk with the loans, as in: As with several earlier points, this is redundant; it is implied by the sentence that follows.
7. Removal of The provision of public funds for the business program continues to be an issue... But not everyone agreed that more money should be provided, with responses to the news including comments such as “Prince Charles should dig into his own coffers … before asking anyone for help” and “does it [the Trust] look to control its spending or is it more interested in building a bureaucratic structure at some considerable cost?": The first part of this is not supported anywhere in the source, it is the interpretation of the author. The second part of this originates from a reader's comment appended to the article, a comment that was not part of the source itself, and thus is as unreliable and insignificant as any other random comment on the internet.
8. Removal of actually... their role is more about cheering up the young person if their business is failing, rather than being about giving them practical help which might prevent the failure of their business: The source given does not support this at all; it is the personal opinion of the author.
9. Removal of There are clearly some issues though about how effective a 12 week course can be, because as Martina Milburn the chief executive of the trust said in 2008 "on the Prince's Trust Team programme, you took them through the 12 weeks, you built up their expectation and [then] they fell off the cliff face".: This is a soundbite taken out of context to push a point of view. Milburn was answering a question on making the program work, and used this as a hypothetical concern only.
10. Removal of The way that the Prince's Trust has behaved in respect of the Jason Kanabus Fund legacy, could now affect the money that is left in wills to charities in the UK. In theory, anything could affect everything. This is sourced to a blog, which may be reliable enough for illustrating points, but probably not for introducing novel information. This last one is not as serious an issue as all the other points, however.

Someguy1221 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, my original concern was reference to an OTRS in the edit summary rather than the detail of generally reducing POV language in the article. There was no intent to put off editors from contributing.—Ash (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with most of the changes, but I think that one or two are less clear. For example, point 2 is a factual statement about the Chairman’s experience. You are saying that it implies that he is not qualified for this position. But it could equally be said to imply that his experience is not in his work with young people, but in other areas. Rather than just remove this statement, why can’t someone if they think it is negative add to it with something they think is more positive and reference it. Point 3 was actually a comment referring to charitable activity expenditure not all expenditure including admin. etc. Point 6 is trying to explain something which may be implied in the sentence that follows, but could be considered helpful explanation. So somehow editors can summarise and paraphrase but not in a way that could ever be considered by someone to be negative. What if you paraphrase and summarise something that could be considered by someone to be positive? Should that also be removed? If people aren’t careful you are going to end up with boring lists of facts with nothing ever being explained or interpreted further or even seemingly interesting facts put together because of how someone might conceivably interpret them.TamaraStaples (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For point 2, if you wanted to refer to what the Chairman's experience was in, you would explain what his experience was in, instead of making a point of what he doesn't know. Also, as far as interpretation goes, editors are not supposed to interpret anything, as that would constitute original research. If no reliable source has bothered to interpret something, then no interpretation should be provided on Wikipedia. There's also a difference between summarizing information in a neutral manner, and summarizing in a way that leads the reader to an unverifiable conclusion. Raw information like charitable expenditures, information that has never been interpreted by a reliable source, is supposed to be boring, since there is nothing that can be added to it or interpreted from it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For point 2 presumably if you say something about what he knows, you could also say something about what he doesn't know, as that would be neutral. As for charitable expenditure, it is far from being raw data. It is actually made up of other data in a charity's accounts, including the accounts of the Prince's Trust. This would seem to mean that you could list the other data it comprises but not interpret it but you can explain it? When does explanation become interpretation?TamaraStaples (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An explanation becomes interpretation when it carries an implication. As for saying anything about what he does or doesn't know, you really shouldn't be saying anything on this. There is a link to his article. Anyone who cares will follow it. The article shouldn't be used to make a point about what he is or is not qualified for, where no reliable sources have made any such point. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Think a section is missing

I'm stunned that there is just one sentence about all the charity concerts given for the Prince's Trust. To say that there are some, but that they aren't the big concerts that were given years ago, leads the reader to ask, "Well, tell me about those big concerts, where were they given? Who performed? Who attended? Why are they not as frequent or large, or whatever, so that they aren't what they used to be?" I really strongly feel that to balance this article, there should be discussion of who supported this charity and in what way, and when. I just uploaded a bunch of photos that range from George Harrison and Eric Clapton, to Ringo Starr that are really good photographs, in Wikimedia Commons, just ripe for the using. And the text isn't even here. None of it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add it then?—Ash (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Princes

"(...) featuring the first interview with all three princes (...)" Aren't Andrew and Edward princes, too? Or are they more dukes and earls? ;-) (And what about Prince Philip...?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.246.41 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 September 2007

yeah like what is going on?!! i have never seen a worse aricle in my life and as for them bein dukes? i think the (u) should be changes to (ic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.30.39 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your posts and please do not use this talk page for chat, see WP:Forum. If you think the page should have specific improvements or contains errors then your comments will be welcome.—Ashleyvh (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The princes generally have ducal titles as well, usually for each of the four "home nations" in an attempt to confer some local relevance. Prince Andrew is also well known as the duke of York and also, IIRC, the earl of Inverness. Outside of a ceremonial or formal context, these titles are usually only used more widely when a prince or princess either loses their main title or finds it politically expedient to use a less conspicuous title. For example Edward VIII became, on abdication, the duke of Westminster rather than "prince Edward". Currently, Mrs Camilla Windsor is known as the duchess of Cornwall rather than "princess Camilla" or "princess of Wales", titles to which she presumably has entitlement. I would suggest that further discussion is confined to the pages of the people in question, or on the royal in general, and this article continues to refer to royal individuals by their most frequently used titles. 87.114.84.91 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits

EdPercival (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Added Fairbridge programme which was added with merger with Fairbridge charity EdPercival (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Just correcting spelling errors Enterprise rather than Enterpise

This article does not give the full picture.

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/the-princes-charities/the-princes-trust

If you look at some of the facts given on the Prince of Wale's website and then at this article on the prince's trust, it looks like this article is designed to minimize the success of the princes trust in a biased way. 700,000 young people worked with should be mentioned, as should the way the organization grew so fast into the biggest youth charity in the UK. It would also be interesting to read a bit more about the Prince's involvement, I worked with the trust twice and both times the prince visited the events. The article makes him look like a hands off patron as he is for the national trust, rather than the founder, involved for decades, still active in it that he is.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/23/the-princes-trust-helping-young-people-into-work-for-almost-four-decades-3893568/ This article also gives lots of facts that could be in this article.

http://www.kashflow.com/blog/working-princes-trust/ An example of a success that could be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.158.12 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

From a cursory read of the article, I have a couple of suggestions:

• The "timeline" section is good, but would be served better by being expanded to a full "history" section to allow events to be described in more detail (for instance, who or what received the 10,000th "Development Award"; what were the controversies over the Sainsbury family legacy and Bill Gates donation, and how were they described by critics and responded to by the trust; what charities were brought together in 1999 under the banner of the trust?)
• Are there any more recent figures for turnover and expenditure? In fact, a large amount of the article seems to be dated to 2009-10, so would benefit from expanding with more recent information to bring it up to date.

— Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Projects?

Is there a list on Wikipedia of projects undertaken by the charity? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Prince's Trust. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202024052/http://www.charitiesdirect.com/CharitiesSearchTop500.asp?sortby=E to http://www.charitiesdirect.com/CharitiesSearchTop500.asp?sortby=E

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).

• 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) 19:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Prince's Trust. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/gsdDetail?type=GSD&page=0&itemId=1075127190&refpage=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718033737/http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/889186/Princes-Trust-investigated-Tory-donation/06548351A4642B1FEE48947140D0E3D8/ to http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/889186/Princes-Trust-investigated-Tory-donation/06548351A4642B1FEE48947140D0E3D8/

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).

• 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) 00:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Negative opinion

This article appears to be very negative rather than factual, it should be completly rewritten by someone with out such a negative attitude towards this charity which does a lot of good work.

I agree. Although it is all factual, the emphasis seems to be on negative facts that show the Prince's Trust in the worst possible light. I certainly wouldn't call it neutral. More about the good work it does needs to be added. 89.240.132.9 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative and factual are quite different things. I think that the article is quite factual, and is reasonably well referenced. If these facts come over in total as somehow negative, then other people can add other facts.TamaraStaples (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Prince's Trust are now editing the page themselves anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TamaraStaples (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Prince's Trust shares other users' concerns that this page is being edited to give a negative impression of the organisation. We would welcome input from members of the Wikipedia community to ensure the page is 'neutrally presented' in line with Wikipedia best practice. The Princes Trust (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In the light of the above concerns, I have added a neutrality tag to the article as a temporary measure. --Vince (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe The Princes Trust should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There is nothing biased here. --90.242.158.247 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that just because someone creates a user account called The Princes Trust does not mean they have provided any evidence that they have anything to do with The Princes Trust charity. See Get_a_wikipedia_username#Company.2Fgroup_names for guidance on possible conflict of interest.—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume Princes Trust are concerned about the comments regarding how much money is actually spent on young people compared to management. Knowing Princes Trust Team finances well they charge delivery organisations such as Fire Services at least £1400 per team for using their name, donate nothing & get the glory. The Trust then books places like Brands Hatch, & Leeds Castle for posh events to celebrate what the "Trust??" supposedly achieves. To my mind this article is fair. Silgni1 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems somewhat moot. Nobody who has raised concerns about "negative impressions" has yet cited anything from the page that is factually incorrect or unsourced. As anyone concerned about the tone of the text is free to edit it, but chooses not to bother, I'm removing the neutrality tag. Before anyone adds the tag back, perhaps they could point to part of the text that is actually not neutral in tone and preferably amend it to something they feel is neutral.—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot must have changed on this page in 14 years. It has clearly been expunged of all critical arguments, and has become simply the advertisement it reads like. I think there should be room for non-believers to have their voices heard. This is not so much to do with the obvious (and necessary) scrutinising of the use of funds, as with all charities. It is about questioning the basic principle of promoting repeat-offenders over the heads of better applicants, and the assumption that these recruits will promptly discard their gang loyalties, as though each one represents a gain for the law-abiding community and a loss for the gangs, while a neutral judge might see it as a gain for the gangs through infiltration of prestige organisations. Valetude (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)