Talk:Kids Company - Knowledge (XXG)

1418:. 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 ". 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 1382:, 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. 372: 1874:. It had no bearing on the collapse of Kids Company. In fact, it runs counter with the extensive coverage that Kids Company was managed too loosely. Governance was at the heart of why the government withdrew funding. You just seem to want to shoe-horn it in for reasons which are beyond me. But then you have objected, in apparent tit-for-tat, in the edit I propose. What I have done is tied the LSE report into broader issues concerning the charity - lack of a body of evidence etc - which the RS are reporting on. What you have done is randomnly picked out a couple of comments from the report, the importance of which 1870:

addressed in the dispute resolution thread. The edit is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article: (1) as to the first sentence, there is in depth cover of the financial problems from multiple sources speaking with the benefit of hindsight i.e. with the knowledge of that Kids Company did in fact go bust, with research on auditors reports, Charity Commission investigations etc etc, none of which was (or could be) known by the LSE researchers (and was outside the scope of their study anyway). (2) as to the second sentence, what is the point of it? no one else has ever said anything like it:

1853:'s articulation of the issue. Perhaps that IS the issue! We're arguing different points. My point is correctly summarised on the DRN and atop of this, the LSE report and the citation I'd like to include contains an earlier (2013) indication of the financial challenges the charity faced than the more recent (in the last six months) sources cited in the current article. I see good cause to include the LSE citation regarding challenge without qualifying the citation by saying 'the research study, its authors and the LSE can't be trusted based on nought'. 1655:. Apart from the issues covered at the RSN thread, I see two other problems with your proposed addition. As far as the first sentence is concerned, what purpose does it serve to include it? We've got multiple comments and sources that funding problems impacted its sustainability. That's stating the obvious and we don't need it stating again. Then with the second sentence we have the opposite problem. Multiple RS have identified poor/light management governance as being a problem. It would be quite 943:, I've reverted you - let's keep it out until there is consensus to include it. secondly, the point of the Time Higher article is that the LSE research project missed major issues it should have covered. What I am saying is that there is clear evidence that it is not a reliable source. It is not a case of "where RS conflicts" it is a case of RS v non-RS. also, it cannot possibly be used as a source for the 36,000 when it clearly is only repeating Kids Company's assertion in the face of multiple 1725:, why Kids Company failed for a speculative one liner in a 2-year old research report where the one-liner is clearly outside the competence of the researchers and where the report itself has subsequently been criticised for being sycophantic to the Kids Company founder. I continue to be opposed to the edit in question for the reasons I've stated and I don't see any consensus for inclusion. However, I would support the following being included in the Foundation and expansion section: 801:

Company as they talk about their work and engage in daily activities." The research data collected was limited to "5 focus groups with Kids Company’s staff and volunteers; 24 individual interviews (4 semi-structured and 20 unstructured) with Kids Company’s staff and volunteers; 85 online questionnaires of staff and volunteers working across Kids Company’s sites and programmes; Systematic observations based on a pre-designed observation template of 32 activities." (see page 6)

362: 1204:, despite their protestations in the Telegraph article? Perhaps from hereon in we should all ignore anything the Telegraph reports on any company that's ever paid for a full paid advert in the organ? Once paid the Telegraph obviously can't be trusted to be impartial! Utter nonsense. It's apparent the Telegraph is being mischievous as it makes no claim outside of 'Kids Co paid for the research so the report must be dodgy' 341: 1605:"In 2013, a research study by the London School of Economics identified 'imited and unstable funding' as a major source of stress and anxiety for staff and 'a massive challenge for the sustainability' of the charity. It also found that an increase in bureaucracy and excessive management could jeopardise the charity's effectiveness and presented a challenge to its ability to sustain focus on the needs of its clients". 450: 252: 2849:

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.

221: 516: 1946:

have argued at length to have that inclusion excluded for reasons I have never and still don't understand. I've not tried to "shoe-horn" anything in. I've endeavoured to add balance, using RS, to the article about "Kids Company" which currently still, overwhelmingly, looks like an article that could be easily be called, "The Condemnation of Kids Company and its Founder".

2107:, from discussions initiated or controlled, or both, mainly by left-wing (and often Guardian-reading, online or offline, or both, or BBC/Ch4 News-watching or listening) Knowledge (XXG) editors (ganging up together, obviously with a view to impose their own private and personal political agenda onto Knowledge (XXG)), can detract the rest of us from the fact that 2161:'s sake! I mean, The Guardian practically painted the collapse (or at least the impending collapse, until the writing was obviously on the wall) of "Keeping Kids Company" as a massive evil Tory and David-Cameronian conspiracy for weeks and weeks (and I am absolutely no Call-Me-Dave-supporting Tory!) You really would have to be a dyed-in-the-wool 1700:. 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; 1450:, neither do you have concensus. You will be as guilty of edit-warring as me. But I'm not here for warring. I'm simply entitled to stand my ground. For the time being as you've not addressed my concern specifically, I can but assume your objection is no stronger than 'questionalable/unreliable source', which the LSE research study is not. 1208:. Instead only amateurish supposition and inuendo. Organisations constantly pay for reports into themselves. Not just from academia, also from some of the largest consulting firms on the planet. Must the world assume such reports are now crud because millions have been paid for them? LSE have vouched for the impartiality of the report. 2848:

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

2433:

whatsoever here, I'm not James O'Brien -though I did look him up just to make sure:) - and to the best of my knowledge, you and I haven't edited the same article before. In short, I'm not anticipating serious disagreement with anyone and I've no problems with others choosing the source. Hopefully we

2200:

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

1422:

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

1318:

in an unrelated matter, "A DTI official told me: 'We presented a petition to the court to wind up the company in the public interest and we made an application for the Official Receiver to be liquidator. There is not much more we can say as the matter is now sub judice.' - that such matters ought not

1164:

With respect, I absolutely disagree with you. It is not for editors to questions or interpret RS. The 36,000 is the first point under key finding. You cannot know how LSE came to insert this under key findings so should take that in good faith. For you to say 'they didn't check' is pure assumption or

910:

preceded by the words; "The key findings of the study are presented below". At numeroud times the Spectator article is cited regarding ex-senior managers/employess - but for all we know these were disgruntled employees, but ours is not to quetion RS. Only to faithfully reproduce. Your suggestion that

1445:

You cannot educate me on liquidation or the work of Official Receivers. I'm 'very' au fait with with company law and in another life, not so long ago, I've represented company owners in both voluntary and compulsory liquidations. But thanks for trying. Regarding the Kids Company source I cited, I've

995:

It is however not unusual for charities to pay outside consultants to do external reviews of the organisation. The LSE reports may well be tainted for other reasons, but as long as the reviewers are independent the fact that they were paid for doing the work does not necessarily indicate any kind of

905:

To be fair, the majority of the article is misleading but Wiki says truth should bow to verifiability. Wiki editing says that where RS conflicts, both/all sources can be presented. Why not this one? If your issue is the word "confirmed", I have now amended this. It is certainly a "Key finding" as it

804:

If you look at page 15 of the report, it is quite clear the report is simply quoting what the 2012 accounts claimed, unchecked. Unlike the other contents of the conclusion, there is no discussion of the 36,000 in the research methodology. The number is only then referred to in an introductory way in

746:

I don't know why it says "reaching" - that's not what the cited source says. As for the main point, there has been much recent coverage that the 36,000 comes from the charity and may have been exaggerated - in fact that's what the main body of the article says. The lead uses a different cited source

1812:

has openly defended the research study's impartiality and integrity - as pointed out above. Are we saying he can't be trusted or believed either? Your current protestations are akin to 'A' calling 'B' a liar while producing no evidence of the accusation. 'B' then vehemently defending his honour and

1791:

of the report. I truly don't understand what you're not understanding. You say, "clearly outside the competence of the researchers"? Based on what? You're clearly make unfounded assumptions about an LSE professor. As for the report being 2-years old, I've already pointed out why its age (as a first

1337:

for statements that "Kids Company claim/say X") simply said the OR was to be appointed. It didn't say what you claimed it said: that the OR has yet to confirm that that the reason it closed was lack of reserves. We don't know what the OR will cover in any public statements. The OR may not even give

648:

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

2856:

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

2707:

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 -

1945:

I disagree that my latest edit adds nothing to the article. The "in depth cover of the financial problems from multiple sources speaking with the benefit of hindsight" doesn't negate the fact that the LSE study noted, without the benefit of hindsight and as a key finding, financial challenges. You

2860:

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

1430:

purpose is not to act as a judicial enquiry into what went wrong and publish the findings - although sometimes that may happen as a by-product because in the course of the liquidation wrongdoing is found e.g. what's called "wrongful trading". that's a serious issue and I've not as yet seen anyone

1295:

Cool. Forget balance. Simply include LSE's response because I fancy doing so and because I see it as relevant to the article in light of the suggestion of LSE bias which I am not persuaded about. And it comes from the RS, the Telegraph. As for the 36,000, it seem perverse and is at the very least

800:

No it doesn't - and it's not a "key finding". There is no evidence that the research looked into the number. The research was about Kids Company's methodology of the services it provided. Per page 57: " The research focused on the views, perceptions and experiences of staff and volunteers of Kids

1869:

Yes, you seem to misunderstand the issue. Originally, you wanted to use it as a source for the 36,000 number. It's not a reliable source for that. But you seem to have dropped that and moved on to the edit cited in your 09:06, 17 August 2015 post above. The issues I have with that are the ones I

673:

agreed. the edits were made by someone using a real name which matches up with KC's PR person. plus that person had made edits on no other article. The article has since been fixed of promotional material/tone however now doesn't fairly reflect on the importance of the charity - if anything the

1940:

You're the one who argued that the LSE report was not RS for the number 36,000. I completely disagreed with you and was unswerving in my argument. I never ceded my position because the LSE report was not RS. Instead, I gave way to you because you were being a stick in the mud and I couldn't be

1122:

Hi Selector. I was on the receiving end of a letter from a solicitor following fraud allegations I made some years ago & I continue to choose my words carefully! I'm certain there appears to be a question mark over the report. The Telegraph doesn't say it was corrupt and we can't either.

2201:

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.

2852:

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.

1251:. Yay! Consensus of two! All I'm saying is question marks don't make something so. They're just question marks although, in my opinion, in this case they're quite idle question marks. I've had many solicitors letters (business and personal); I know much about "the avoidance of doubt". 2668:, 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. 273: 1796:

I've also already said I'm hoping to have the unqualified citation included, so your proposed text is useless to me. Not to mention it's interspersed with irrelevance seemingly seeking only to rubbish/pooh-pooh the LSE research study and then doesn't even include

1740:(LSE) £40,000 to carry out a research project on Kids Company. The subsequent project report praised the charity's work and described it as "unique" and "extraordinary". The report became one of the most-cited assessments of Kids Company's work. However, in 2015, 1165:

guesswork on your part. If that's how RS worked we'd have very few RS as most don't always tell you how they got what they're printing. Readers are expected to trust them based on reputation. As the Telegraph article also points out, LSE have commented saying,

1764:

This sets the existing text in the article criticizing the report in context and brings out the real reason the report is notable - not because it diagnosed Kids Company's problems but because it was the only empirical evidence praising Kids Company's work.

1141:

this report. We are discussing whether it should be cited. All we need to know is that two reliable sources have cast significant doubt on its credibility. We don't need to go into the detail of why. That's enough for us to say it doesn't comply with our

1659:

to state the report's point of view. Perhaps the only way to do it is to combine it with the existing text on the criticism of the report so that we have an assertion of what the report said combined with an acknowledgement of its defects as a source.

884:

on the LSE Research project. Not only does it confirm that the researchers simply repeated Kids Company's claim on the 36,000, but it questions the credibility of the report because it was funded by Kids Company. I think on this basis, the report is not

785:

confirms that the charity's services were reaching 36,000 children, young people and their families at the time the research was completed in 2013. The exact wording on pp. 57 reads, "Its services reach 36,000 children,young people and their families".

1185:

This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the

805:

the report, abnd in an introductory way in the conclusion. In other words, it is not what the report is about. So I believe it is quite misleading to say the report in any way "confirmed" the number. In fact, given the amount of coverage in

1830:

And it's "speculative" because Kids Company hadn't gone bust when they wrote the report. They don't have any competence to opine on the financial position because they're sociologists not accountants. I would think both points are obvious.

2141:, given their past partisan if not highly-partisan support that they had lent, almost unconditionally, to Batmanghelidjh and Kids Company, especially in July and August of this year (the year 2015). This is Knowledge (XXG), not the bloody 196:

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

1706:"There is no conflict between the citation's comment on the pitfalls of "excessive management" and later calls for "improved management". The two are quite different things and, frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise". 2311:) were basically hired-for-free propaganda/PR mouthpieces for Kids Co. and Camila Batman-what-ever-her-name-is, at least until about June, July, August or September of this year (the year 2015)! Do please give it a rest! What is this 1813:

integrity while 'C' tells 'B' his protests are pointless as 'B' can't be trusted or believed because 'A' called 'B' a liar! As I can't see you and me arriving at consensus on this, I think it's time to call on an administrator.

1390:

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.

1338:

an opinion. The main job of a liquidator is to sell off the assets and repay creditors. It's not some sort of judicial enquiry. Normally, there won't be public statements on why the organization went bust unless thee has been

1431:

suggesting that the alleged financial mismanagement is of those proportions. But generally, the insolvency of the business is taken as a simple fact, and the only point is how much money can be raised for the creditors.

2400:, it is now accepted that ministers from both major parties made a mistake in funding this organisation -see Public Accounts Committee report. Recent coverage from reliable sources accept that and so should we. Both 727:

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.

2712:

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

1265:

Then surely, for balance, if for no other reason (for the article is more than a little comdemning with not much counter punch), LSE's response to the Telegraph in the Telegraph should be included in the article?

1280:

We don't do "balance" in that way. We reflect coverage in reliable sources. Currently, there is no reliable source that I am aware of which is defending Kids Company's claim on the 36,000. We must reflect that.

153: 1031:

the funding takes us out of that type of discussion. (I suspect that, in practice, it's had that critique because the output of the research is questionable, and not just down to the funding.)

1827:

Administrators don't arbitrate content disputes. There are a number of dispute resolution processes all of which involve getting more editors involved to determine consensus. One is RfC.

1528:

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.

1333:

Selector, yes I reverted that for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Firstly, the cited source was the Kids Company website. The website (which as a self-published source, is only

1296:

revisionist to dismiss the past with current reporting. Surely, I like any editor, am entitled to be bold without constant fear of evision because another editor disagrees with my NPOV

674:

recent issue is disproportionally represented on the article now. It would be nice if someone (neutral/unconnected!) with knowledge of the charity's work can add more to the article.

206: 925:

The Times HE article suggest praise alone. The research study is both critical as well as including praise. The Times HE article is clearly not the straightest arrow in the box.

2861:

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.

844: 2936: 2784: 2780: 2766: 2601: 2597: 2583: 323: 147: 2931: 1779:

You're entitled to call anything you want ridiculous but that, of course, doesn't make it so. The LSE citation is not, "a speculative one liner". Instead these are

649:

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.

418: 1314:

on another note, I see that you reverted my edit which said, "The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this". You'll note from the following

841: 838: 1319:

to be decided by speculative newspapers articles or reported in Wiki. Or are we all up for breaking the law because the Telegraph fancies sticking its neck out?

704: 2916: 2876: 313: 1386:

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

79: 2926: 1468:: the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Consensus is needed to add material not to keep it out. Per 2921: 289: 2911: 1027:

for us to ignore it on the basis that it's "not unusual for charities to pay outside consultants". The fact that it's already had this critique from RS

428: 192: 2049: 877: 1476:

is deemed to have consensus unless/until an unchallenged edit is made or an explicit consensus emerges on the talk page. In short, having the article

2020: 1736:"Kids Company has been criticized for failing to develop a body of evidence to support the efficacy of its activities. In 2013, the charity paid the 1054: 835: 85: 1498:

In the meantime, while not quoting from it (yet), I have gone ahead and re-inserted the LSE research study as a reference source appropriately.

1137:

Selector99, by "not the avoidance of doubt", do you mean "beyond reasonable doubt"? If so, that's notbthe test. We're not discussing an article

2174: 280: 257: 500: 747:

for the statement, from February of this year i.e. before Kids Company's claims where being widely challenged. I think the right thing, per

656: 44: 30: 394: 2303:

than the Mail on Sunday with regards to Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh. The Grauniad, the Indy (especially either by, or under,

1179:"University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research,” he said. 710:

So the figures given are sourced but may still be incorrect. Perhaps a regular contributor to this article would like to reflect this.

371: 2714: 2469: 2244: 1637:...and cite the LSE research study as RS. I hope now that a few days have passed, the waters have calmed and we can reach consensus. 1546:

It made some sense as my intention was to reference, "report by the LSE". However, I take your point and my last edit reflects this.

543: 468: 99: 2872: 2762:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

732: 714: 630: 588: 1200:

Are we to simply ignore this truth? Dismiss Oxford organisational research? Cambridge? UCL? The leading business school in the UK,

535: 527: 460: 104: 20: 2330: 2142: 1070:

The LSE and Batmanghelidjh should have made the source of funding clear. If the Telegraph is right they failed to do so. Why not?

697: 74: 2297:

Guardian (either in print; or on Guardian Unlimited) (if not also the Independent and the BBC (BBC News)) has been shown to be

2683:

Also, The Place To Be where Batmanghelidjh worked was actually part of another, separate, charity, Family Service Units. FSU

1211:

In the end, Wiki is about consensus - whether truth lies that way is not important. I'm content to go with the majority flow.

705:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-inside-story-of-how-the-spectator-broke-the-kids-company-scandal/?ref=yfp

385: 346: 232: 1753:

criticized the report for being excessively sympathetic to the charity and for failing to identify its significant problems."

2495:

Apart from the obvious problem of Kids Company being the only article in the London category apart from the London article,

2383:- there are respectable broadsheet newspapers that have a right-of-centre perspective that are considered reliable sources. 2263: 65: 1480:

your edit is the consensus position until there is explicit consensus on the talk page to include it. This is the basis of

168: 1342:

wrongdoing by directors and they are to be sued. Btw, it's well established in Knowledge (XXG) that the Daily Mail is not

1012: 1406:

I would recommend you don't reinsert it as clearly you don't have, at the moment anyway, consensus to to so. Please read

135: 2827: 2286: 2170: 484: 1315: 2079: 1807: 1737: 2868: 464: 198: 109: 2071: 782: 494: 2783:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2600:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1522:

In August 2015, the Daily Telegraph criticised the company for paying £40k towards a "glowing" report by the LSE

205:. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see 2892: 2504: 2485: 2388: 2224:

gives some details of the report by PWC. It appears to me that much of the article will have to be rewritten.

660: 238: 220: 129: 2561: 2499:

states "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".

832: 2818: 2744: 2718: 2664:, a project which was the inspiration for the subsequent charity. Batmanghelidjh continued to work with the 2248: 1107:

You mean we can't say for sure, so must say "appears to be"? That's not the avoidance of doubt in my books.

1061: 2864: 751:, is that we should take out that source from the lead and precis what's in the main body of the article. 652: 634: 592: 2740: 2350: 2185: 1805:

The reports is notable because it was produced by LSE whose spokesperson (that's someone speaking for the

1749: 490: 1469: 557:

I have noted various reliable sources just needs further expansion and clarification I am working on it.

125: 55: 2802:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2790: 2639: 2619:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2607: 2129:

of and as sources with regards to both "Keeping Kids Company" and to Camila Batmanghelidjh, than either

1057: 736: 718: 393:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

288:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2743:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 965:, which I agree with. How could we possibly then use that tainted source for anything in this article? 70: 2684: 2206: 2166: 1951: 1858: 1818: 1712: 1642: 1551: 1503: 1455: 1396: 1324: 1301: 1271: 1256: 1216: 1112: 930: 916: 813:

to give any impression that 36,000 has been "confirmed" by any source. I have therefore remove this.

791: 577: 562: 175: 2888: 2752: 2551: 2500: 2481: 2401: 2384: 1846: 161: 2103: 1465: 679: 620: 474: 2787:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2604:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2210: 1871: 1656: 1565: 1387: 810: 2803: 2620: 1878:

have identified and which is not reflected in other coverage - that's the essence of WP:UNDUE.

2533: 2426: 2397: 2346: 2181: 1911: 1883: 1836: 1770: 1665: 1533: 1489: 1436: 1350: 1286: 1238: 1151: 1036: 970: 952: 894: 851: 818: 770: 756: 698:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/15/how-kids-company-feeds-britains-hungry-children

51: 2405: 748: 2635: 612:

Amazingly there is no reference to any of the research mentioned in the 'Research' section.

478: 2810: 2627: 2496: 2430: 2409: 1694: 1569: 1481: 1407: 940: 2541: 2461: 2338: 2202: 2150: 1947: 1854: 1814: 1708: 1638: 1547: 1499: 1451: 1392: 1320: 1297: 1267: 1252: 1212: 1108: 926: 912: 787: 573: 558: 141: 2708:

all already known to them - whilst in Bristol they could only find a further 175 clients.

1447: 1411: 1343: 1334: 1143: 1024: 1020: 944: 886: 828: 806: 2404:

and I are experienced editors albeit new to this controversial article. We will keep a

2329:(in print) across Knowledge (XXG) all about?! And, oh, please, are you sure you are not 2769:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2692: 2673: 2586:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2439: 2417: 2375:'s comment is a "blatant party-political broadcast". The choice isn't just between the 2342: 2334: 2271: 2229: 2154: 2146: 1446:

already explained above why I did so all else is circular discussion to no end. As for

1128: 1075: 1023:(The Telegraph and the Times Higher) that are making that connection. It would then be 984: 2809:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2776: 2626:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2593: 809:

that the number was either "exaggerated" or, more NPOV, uncheckable it would be quite

606:

Quite incredibly there is not one single reference to anything cited in this article.

2905: 2464:, as it was one of only two articles in that top-level category (the other one being 2290: 2282: 2162: 1742: 1721:

That's ridiculous. We're not going to take out respected reliable sources analysing,

675: 616: 377: 285: 2845:

Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court, who has never had to work for a funded charity,

615:

Kids Company could take this article and use it, unchanged, as a publicity leaflet.

2736: 2523: 1937: 1907: 1879: 1850: 1832: 1766: 1690: 1661: 1561: 1543: 1529: 1485: 1432: 1379: 1346: 1311: 1282: 1234: 1161: 1147: 1032: 966: 948: 890: 847: 814: 766: 752: 609:

There are no sources for any of the figures put forward in 'The Centers ' section.

361: 340: 24: 2221: 1414:. As far as the official receiver was concerned you inserted the following words: 2308: 2304: 2158: 2050:"London School of Economics was paid £40,000 for glowing report on Kids Company" 1520:. You have now cited the report itself as a source for the following statement: 487:) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. 272: 251: 2314:

constant secret, undeclared, obviously-private-political-agenda-driven campaign

515: 2775:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2592:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2429:, I've highlighted the tabloid refs I intend to remove or replace. I have no 2177: 2120: 979:

For the avoidance of doubt, the LSE reports do appear to be tainted. Regards

367: 911:

this is preamble is interpretaion which Wiki also advises editors not to do.

459:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

2887:

And i have reverted your edit as you are clearly trying to advance your POV.

2688: 2669: 2660:

is a charity established by Benita Refson. Batmanghelidjh was involved with

2473: 2435: 2413: 2372: 2267: 2225: 1248: 1124: 1104: 1071: 980: 1792:

announcer) stands it in better stead as worthy of inclusion in the article.

2562:

https://web.archive.org/20071113224735/http://kidsco.org.uk:80/?page_id=70

2709: 1992: 2538:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2281:

No! ... And, oh, no, not another blatant party-political broadcast for

1906:

I've had enough of this crap. I've taken the article off my watchlist.

2101:

No amount of (probably false) consensus or any other form of probable

2465: 1416:"The Official Receiver, yet to be appointed, has yet to confirm this" 390: 2896: 2880: 2832: 2722: 2696: 2677: 2647: 2508: 2489: 2443: 2421: 2392: 2354: 2275: 2252: 2233: 2189: 2072:"KIDS COMPANY A DIAGNOSIS OF THE ORGANISATION AND ITS INTERVENTIONS" 1955: 1915: 1887: 1862: 1840: 1822: 1774: 1716: 1669: 1646: 1555: 1537: 1507: 1493: 1459: 1440: 1400: 1354: 1328: 1305: 1290: 1275: 1260: 1242: 1220: 1155: 1132: 1116: 1079: 1065: 1040: 1014: 988: 974: 956: 934: 920: 898: 855: 822: 795: 774: 760: 740: 722: 683: 664: 638: 624: 596: 581: 566: 2565: 2546:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

2480:, or explain why you think this article belongs in that category? 2753:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080507215651/http://kidsco.org.uk/

2552:

https://web.archive.org/20150728175757/http://www.kidsco.org.uk/

2021:"Reports hailing Kids Company's 'unique' work funded by charity" 2687:

and was taken over by the Family Welfare Association charity.

510: 444: 214: 184: 15: 700:) but the figures seem to have originated with Kids Company. 2571:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2262:

Much of this article deals with people. We should be using

1146:

criteria. I think we should just leave at that and move on.

644:

This is a promotional statement, not an encyclopedic article

542:

here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or

514: 2555: 696:

The introduction uses figures taken from the given source (

2747:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2266:

and not as in some cases, Daily Mirror, Express or Mail.

457:

contributors may be personally or professionally connected

1993:"The big remaining questions for Kids Company's trustees" 2756: 2842:

I find this judgement controversial, and added an edit

2527: 2522:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

2477: 2180:

in order to be so blinkered as to fail to see that! --

1697: 1652: 1513: 962: 539: 160: 1572:

as you recommended. In essence, I'd like to reinsert;

1524:. What is there in the report that refers to (i) the 1225:

My view is simply it's not a reliable source because

389:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 284:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2779:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2596:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1484:which I've already linked to and is worth reading. 1051:" Unless the suggestion is that LSE is corruptable? 572:Notable subject and references have been provided. 174: 1423:change the resason why Kids Company had to close.) 2363:has a quite different ideological stance to the 1941:bothered with a circular, non-moving discussion. 1410:. Reinserting it at this point could be seen as 1206:with absolutely no evidence presented whatsoever 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2710:BBC News "The return of Camila Batmanghelidjh?" 2765:This message was posted before February 2018. 2582:This message was posted before February 2018. 2307:) and the Beeb (under constant pressure from 1049:Sorry but I had to smile at the edit summary 8: 2243:Added stuff on Alan Yentob and John Podmore. 1801:of the citation or the points I've proposed. 2137:(in print and online, or in print only) or 503:) This user has contributed to the article. 218: 2735:I have just modified one external link on 2317:to effectively purge and expunge not only 1986: 1984: 650: 335: 246: 201:contentious material about living persons 2937:Articles edited by connected contributors 2195: 2133:(in print and online, or in print only), 298:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Organizations 1055:London School of Economics Gaddafi links 1053:" how about you start your reading here 889:and should not be cited in the article. 1980: 524:Individuals with a conflict of interest 337: 248: 2932:Low-importance London-related articles 2014: 2012: 2010: 1521: 1415: 540:request corrections or suggest content 534:not to directly edit the article. See 2434:will have a better article. Regards 7: 2917:Low-importance organization articles 2104:gaming of the Knowledge (XXG) system 2043: 2041: 1849:request, I completely disagree with 536:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest 383:This article is within the scope of 278:This article is within the scope of 2927:Start-Class London-related articles 2703:36000 children - really? Fact Check 2119:(as it used to be called) (online; 1233:, in terms, say it isn't. Simples. 237:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2922:WikiProject Organizations articles 2470:Category:Charities based in London 403:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject London 301:Template:WikiProject Organizations 14: 2912:Start-Class organization articles 2739:. Please take a moment to review 2526:. Please take a moment to review 2264:wp:Suggested sources#Current news 2157:Show, for sweet poor little late 1693:I too have more fully replied at 629:I have added a load of new stuff. 587:I have added a load of new stuff. 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2857:has never used or worked for". 2566:http://kidsco.org.uk/?page_id=70 2196:What's Camilla up to these days? 1845:For any volunteer reviewing the 1564:, you are invited to comment on 530:the subject of the article, are 448: 370: 360: 339: 271: 250: 219: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2019:John Bingham (12 August 2015). 1568:ongoing issue which I moved to 961:also, another editor has added 423:This article has been rated as 318:This article has been rated as 455:The following Knowledge (XXG) 1: 2833:03:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) 2509:23:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 2490:23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 2472:, which is the proper place. 2444:22:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC) 2422:22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 2393:20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 2355:02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 2276:22:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 2190:11:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) 2048:Jack Grove (12 August 2015). 1991:Chris Cook (11 August 2015). 625:10:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC) 397:and see a list of open tasks. 292:and see a list of open tasks. 193:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 2723:13:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 2697:12:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 2678:11:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 2648:23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 2460:I removed this article from 2253:02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC) 2234:17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 2216:Partial PWC report published 2121:https://www.theguardian.com/ 947:that it is an exaggeration. 639:00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 597:00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 2468:itself). The article is in 2211:18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1956:00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC) 1916:16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1888:13:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1863:10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 1841:16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1823:16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1783:specifically identified as 1775:13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1717:12:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 1670:12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 1647:09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 1556:19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1538:09:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1508:08:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1494:08:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1460:08:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1441:08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1401:07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1355:05:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) 1329:22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1306:22:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1291:22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1276:22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1261:21:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1243:21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1221:21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1156:21:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1133:21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1117:20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1080:18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1066:15:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1041:16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 1015:15:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 989:13:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 975:13:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 957:12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 935:09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 921:08:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC) 899:20:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 856:08:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 823:08:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC) 796:23:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC) 406:Template:WikiProject London 203:must be removed immediately 2953: 2897:19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 2881:20:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 2796:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2732:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2613:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2544:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2519:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2080:London School of Economics 1808:London School of Economics 1738:London School of Economics 827:Here's examples of recent 781:A 'key finding' of an LSE 775:19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 761:19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 741:19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 723:18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 707:) challenges the figures. 429:project's importance scale 324:project's importance scale 831:challengfing the number: 692:Figures from Kids Company 665:11:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC) 422: 355: 317: 281:WikiProject Organizations 266: 245: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2556:http://www.kidsco.org.uk 2408:so please help us ..and 684:03:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC) 582:02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 567:22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 2869:WantsToMakeThingsBetter 2728:External links modified 2515:External links modified 2287:Socialist Workers Party 1019:The point is that it's 546:if the issue is urgent. 409:London-related articles 2117:The Guardian Unlimited 1787:to the charity in the 1750:Times Higher Education 1651:I've responded at RSN 519: 227:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 2757:http://kidsco.org.uk/ 2476:would you reconsider 2295:Your no-doubt beloved 526:, particularly those 518: 469:neutral point of view 304:organization articles 231:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 2777:regular verification 2594:regular verification 2579:to let others know. 2530:. If necessary, add 1512:I have to be blunt. 1388:questionable sources 461:conflict of interest 105:No original research 2767:After February 2018 2584:After February 2018 2575:parameter below to 2300:far more unreliable 2291:Master Wolfie Smith 2126:far more unreliable 1518:no sense whatsoever 2821:InternetArchiveBot 2772:InternetArchiveBot 2589:InternetArchiveBot 2371:, I don't see how 2327:the Mail on Sunday 2135:The Mail On Sunday 878:here is an article 520: 386:WikiProject London 233:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2867:comment added by 2797: 2685:went bust in 2006 2646: 2614: 2345:in disguise?! -- 2258:Reliable sources. 1010: 1009: 667: 655:comment added by 550: 549: 509: 508: 443: 442: 439: 438: 435: 434: 334: 333: 330: 329: 213: 212: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2944: 2883: 2831: 2822: 2795: 2794: 2773: 2642: 2641:Talk to my owner 2637: 2612: 2611: 2590: 2545: 2537: 2093: 2092: 2090: 2088: 2076: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2059: 2057: 2045: 2036: 2035: 2033: 2031: 2016: 2005: 2004: 2002: 2000: 1988: 1231:The Times Higher 1011: 1005: 999: 998: 783:research project 532:strongly advised 511: 452: 451: 445: 411: 410: 407: 404: 401: 380: 375: 374: 364: 357: 356: 351: 343: 336: 306: 305: 302: 299: 296: 275: 268: 267: 262: 254: 247: 230: 224: 223: 215: 207:this noticeboard 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2902: 2901: 2862: 2846: 2840: 2825: 2820: 2788: 2781:have permission 2771: 2745:this simple FaQ 2730: 2705: 2662:The Place To Be 2655: 2645: 2640: 2605: 2598:have permission 2588: 2539: 2531: 2517: 2462:Category:London 2458: 2456:London category 2359:Given that the 2339:Charlie Brooker 2325:(in print) and 2319:the Mail Online 2260: 2241: 2218: 2198: 2151:Charlie Brooker 2139:The Mail Online 2098: 2097: 2096: 2086: 2084: 2083:. 6 August 2015 2074: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2055: 2053: 2047: 2046: 2039: 2029: 2027: 2025:Daily Telegraph 2018: 2017: 2008: 1998: 1996: 1990: 1989: 1982: 1723:after the event 1008: 1007: 1003: 997: 694: 646: 604: 555: 553:Various sources 491:AnnaButterworth 449: 408: 405: 402: 399: 398: 376: 369: 349: 303: 300: 297: 294: 293: 260: 228: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2950: 2948: 2940: 2939: 2934: 2929: 2924: 2919: 2914: 2904: 2903: 2900: 2899: 2889:IdreamofJeanie 2844: 2839: 2836: 2815: 2814: 2807: 2760: 2759: 2751:Added archive 2729: 2726: 2704: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2654: 2651: 2638: 2632: 2631: 2624: 2569: 2568: 2560:Added archive 2558: 2550:Added archive 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2501:Cordless Larry 2482:Cordless Larry 2457: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2402:Cordless Larry 2385:Cordless Larry 2343:Catherine Tate 2335:Russell Howard 2323:the Daily Mail 2259: 2256: 2240: 2237: 2217: 2214: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2155:Catherine Tate 2147:Russell Howard 2131:The Daily Mail 2095: 2094: 2063: 2037: 2006: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1943: 1942: 1919: 1918: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1828: 1803: 1802: 1794: 1793: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1701: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1472:the article's 1424: 1383: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1209: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1181: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1001: 1000: 959: 902: 901: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 825: 802: 763: 693: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 657:95.145.168.243 645: 642: 603: 600: 585: 584: 554: 551: 548: 547: 521: 507: 506: 505: 504: 488: 453: 441: 440: 437: 436: 433: 432: 425:Low-importance 421: 415: 414: 412: 395:the discussion 382: 381: 365: 353: 352: 350:Low‑importance 344: 332: 331: 328: 327: 320:Low-importance 316: 310: 309: 307: 290:the discussion 276: 264: 263: 261:Low‑importance 255: 243: 242: 236: 225: 211: 210: 199:poorly sourced 188: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2949: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2918: 2915: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2907: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2843: 2837: 2835: 2834: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2812: 2808: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2792: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2768: 2763: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2727: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2652: 2650: 2649: 2643: 2636: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2609: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2585: 2580: 2578: 2574: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2535: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2455: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331:James O'Brien 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2315: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283:Jeremy Corbyn 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2238: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2215: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143:James O'Brien 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2100: 2099: 2082: 2081: 2073: 2067: 2064: 2051: 2044: 2042: 2038: 2026: 2022: 2015: 2013: 2011: 2007: 1994: 1987: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1809: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1752: 1751: 1745: 1744: 1743:The Telegraph 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1606: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1389: 1384: 1381: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1227:The Telegraph 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1187: 1182: 1180: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058:Lampshade Dog 1056: 1052: 1048: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1006: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 977: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 939:Firstly, per 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 924: 923: 922: 918: 914: 909: 904: 903: 900: 896: 892: 888: 883: 879: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 857: 853: 849: 845: 842: 839: 836: 833: 830: 826: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 803: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 784: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 772: 768: 764: 762: 758: 754: 750: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 729: 725: 724: 720: 716: 711: 708: 706: 703:This source ( 701: 699: 691: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 666: 662: 658: 654: 643: 641: 640: 636: 632: 627: 626: 622: 618: 613: 610: 607: 601: 599: 598: 594: 590: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 552: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 522: 517: 513: 512: 502: 499: 496: 492: 489: 486: 483: 480: 476: 473: 472: 470: 466: 465:autobiography 462: 458: 454: 447: 446: 430: 426: 420: 417: 416: 413: 396: 392: 388: 387: 379: 378:London portal 373: 368: 366: 363: 359: 358: 354: 348: 345: 342: 338: 325: 321: 315: 312: 311: 308: 295:Organizations 291: 287: 286:Organizations 283: 282: 277: 274: 270: 269: 265: 259: 258:Organizations 256: 253: 249: 244: 240: 234: 226: 222: 217: 216: 208: 204: 200: 195: 194: 189: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2863:— Preceding 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2841: 2819: 2816: 2791:source check 2770: 2764: 2761: 2737:Kids Company 2734: 2731: 2715:79.67.43.220 2706: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2633: 2608:source check 2587: 2581: 2576: 2572: 2570: 2524:Kids Company 2521: 2518: 2459: 2427:Urquhartnite 2398:Urquhartnite 2380: 2376: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2347:Urquhartnite 2326: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2312: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2261: 2245:2.97.122.144 2242: 2219: 2199: 2182:Urquhartnite 2149:Show or the 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2124: 2116: 2113:The Observer 2112: 2111:(in print), 2109:The Guardian 2108: 2102: 2085:. Retrieved 2078: 2066: 2054:. Retrieved 2028:. Retrieved 2024: 1997:. Retrieved 1975: 1875: 1806: 1798: 1788: 1784: 1781:Key Findings 1780: 1747: 1741: 1722: 1705: 1688: 1604: 1525: 1517: 1477: 1473: 1470:WP:CONSENSUS 1464:Please read 1448:edit-warring 1427: 1419: 1412:edit-warring 1385: 1377: 1339: 1230: 1226: 1205: 1201: 1184: 1178: 1138: 1102: 1050: 1028: 1002: 907: 882:Times Higher 881: 730: 726: 712: 709: 702: 695: 651:— Preceding 647: 628: 614: 611: 608: 605: 586: 556: 531: 528:representing 523: 497: 481: 456: 424: 384: 319: 279: 239:WikiProjects 202: 191: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 25:Kids Company 19:This is the 2478:your revert 2309:Alan Yentob 2305:Deborah Orr 2159:Fanny Adams 1789:Conclusions 1420:Independent 908:immediately 733:78.150.4.76 715:78.150.4.76 631:2.97.114.10 589:2.97.114.10 229:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 2906:Categories 2828:Report bug 2412:. Regards 2365:Daily Mail 2289:, please, 2203:Selector99 2145:Show, the 2052:. BBC News 1995:. BBC News 1976:References 1948:Selector99 1855:Selector99 1815:Selector99 1785:Challenges 1709:Selector99 1639:Selector99 1548:Selector99 1500:Selector99 1474:status quo 1452:Selector99 1393:Selector99 1321:Selector99 1298:Selector99 1268:Selector99 1253:Selector99 1213:Selector99 1109:Selector99 1029:because of 927:Selector99 913:Selector99 788:Selector99 602:References 574:Dwanyewest 559:Dwanyewest 544:contact us 538:. You may 190:While the 2838:Judgement 2811:this tool 2804:this tool 2628:this tool 2621:this tool 2321:but also 2169:-reading 2165:-voting, 2087:11 August 2056:18 August 2030:13 August 1999:18 August 1526:Telegraph 1514:That edit 1466:WP:BURDEN 1316:DTI quote 963:this edit 876:In fact, 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2877:contribs 2865:unsigned 2817:Cheers.— 2634:Cheers.— 2534:cbignore 2379:and the 2377:Guardian 2367:and the 1876:only you 1872:WP:UNDUE 1657:WP:UNDUE 1229:and the 811:WP:UNDUE 676:Rayman60 653:unsigned 617:Cannonmc 501:contribs 485:contribs 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2741:my edit 2666:project 2658:Place2B 2653:Place2B 2644::Online 2573:checked 2528:my edit 2406:wp:npov 2369:Express 2285:or the 2239:Updated 2222:article 2123:), are 1938:DeCausa 1908:DeCausa 1880:DeCausa 1851:DeCausa 1833:DeCausa 1767:DeCausa 1691:DeCausa 1662:DeCausa 1562:DeCausa 1544:DeCausa 1530:DeCausa 1486:DeCausa 1478:without 1433:DeCausa 1380:DeCausa 1347:DeCausa 1340:serious 1312:DeCausa 1283:DeCausa 1247:Howdy, 1235:DeCausa 1162:DeCausa 1148:DeCausa 1033:DeCausa 996:taint. 967:DeCausa 949:DeCausa 891:DeCausa 880:in the 848:DeCausa 815:DeCausa 767:DeCausa 753:DeCausa 749:WP:LEAD 427:on the 322:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2542:nobots 2497:WP:CAT 2466:London 2431:wp:COI 2410:wp:AGF 2361:Mirror 2163:Corbyn 1695:WP:RSN 1570:WP:RSN 1516:makes 1482:WP:BRD 1408:WP:BRD 1186:time". 941:WP:BRD 765:Done. 475:Kidsco 467:, and 400:London 391:London 347:London 235:scale. 126:Google 2220:This 2075:(PDF) 1344:WP:RS 1335:WP:RS 1144:WP:RS 1139:about 1025:WP:OR 1021:WP:RS 1004:Harry 945:WP:RS 887:WP:RS 829:WP:RS 807:WP:RS 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2893:talk 2873:talk 2719:talk 2693:talk 2689:Keri 2674:talk 2670:Keri 2577:true 2505:talk 2486:talk 2474:JRPG 2440:talk 2436:JRPG 2418:talk 2414:JRPG 2389:talk 2381:Mail 2373:JRPG 2351:talk 2272:talk 2268:JRPG 2249:talk 2230:talk 2226:JRPG 2207:talk 2186:talk 2178:Trot 2175:TUSC 2115:and 2089:2015 2058:2014 2032:2015 2001:2014 1952:talk 1912:talk 1884:talk 1859:talk 1837:talk 1819:talk 1771:talk 1748:The 1746:and 1713:talk 1698:here 1666:talk 1653:here 1643:talk 1566:this 1552:talk 1534:talk 1504:talk 1490:talk 1456:talk 1437:talk 1428:main 1426:The 1397:talk 1351:talk 1325:talk 1302:talk 1287:talk 1272:talk 1257:talk 1249:JRPG 1239:talk 1217:talk 1152:talk 1129:talk 1125:JRPG 1113:talk 1105:JRPG 1076:talk 1072:JRPG 1062:talk 1037:talk 985:talk 981:JRPG 971:talk 953:talk 931:talk 917:talk 895:talk 852:talk 819:talk 792:talk 771:talk 757:talk 737:talk 719:talk 713:JDE 680:talk 661:talk 635:talk 621:talk 593:talk 578:talk 563:talk 495:talk 479:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2785:RfC 2755:to 2602:RfC 2564:to 2554:to 2341:or 2171:SWP 1847:DRN 1799:any 1202:LSE 906:is 731:JDE 471:. 419:Low 314:Low 176:TWL 2908:: 2895:) 2879:) 2875:• 2798:. 2793:}} 2789:{{ 2721:) 2713:-- 2695:) 2676:) 2615:. 2610:}} 2606:{{ 2540:{{ 2536:}} 2532:{{ 2507:) 2488:) 2442:) 2420:) 2391:) 2353:) 2337:, 2333:, 2293:! 2274:) 2251:) 2232:) 2209:) 2188:) 2167:SW 2077:. 2040:^ 2023:. 2009:^ 1983:^ 1954:) 1914:) 1886:) 1861:) 1839:) 1821:) 1773:) 1715:) 1668:) 1645:) 1554:) 1536:) 1506:) 1492:) 1458:) 1439:) 1399:) 1353:) 1327:) 1304:) 1289:) 1274:) 1259:) 1241:) 1219:) 1154:) 1131:) 1115:) 1078:) 1064:) 1039:) 987:) 973:) 955:) 933:) 919:) 897:) 854:) 846:. 843:, 840:, 837:, 834:, 821:) 794:) 773:) 759:) 739:) 721:) 682:) 663:) 637:) 623:) 595:) 580:) 565:) 463:, 156:) 54:; 2891:( 2871:( 2830:) 2826:( 2813:. 2806:. 2717:( 2691:( 2672:( 2630:. 2623:. 2503:( 2484:( 2438:( 2416:( 2387:( 2349:( 2270:( 2247:( 2228:( 2205:( 2184:( 2173:/ 2153:/ 2091:. 2060:. 2034:. 2003:. 1950:( 1936:@ 1910:( 1882:( 1857:( 1835:( 1817:( 1810:) 1769:( 1711:( 1689:@ 1664:( 1641:( 1560:@ 1550:( 1542:@ 1532:( 1502:( 1488:( 1454:( 1435:( 1395:( 1378:@ 1349:( 1323:( 1310:@ 1300:( 1285:( 1270:( 1255:( 1237:( 1215:( 1183:“ 1160:@ 1150:( 1127:( 1111:( 1103:@ 1074:( 1060:( 1035:( 983:( 969:( 951:( 929:( 915:( 893:( 850:( 817:( 790:( 769:( 755:( 735:( 717:( 678:( 659:( 633:( 619:( 591:( 576:( 561:( 498:· 493:( 482:· 477:( 431:. 326:. 241:: 209:. 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index