This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
The Children's Society is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The article says correctly "formally known as THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CHILDREN'S SOCIETY" and that is correct. I presume to write this note because in WP "formally" and "formerly" are all too often misused, the one for the other. The Society is now often called "The Children's Society" but it is registered with the longer, older name.--SilasW (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am alerted to a problem when 90% of the article reads like a mission statement from a fund raising brochure. Looking at the editing history confirms most of the content was written by a single editor who has not contributed to any other WP article! OK, a clean up is needed. Do we start by blanking the sections covered by the primary source references? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled over this article and... Wow! How has this been left like this for so long? If this was not a genuine registered charity I'd have it up for speedy deletion like a shot. I'll see what I can do about removing the obvious plagiarism and put some tags on the rest as I'm not up for completely rewriting it myself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was closer to being a rewrite than I planned but I'm done now. I removed a lot of unreferenced and promotional guff. The style of some of what I removed was pretty blatantly the writing of an insider with an insider's perspective. The one section that is quite good is the History section. That could do with better references if anybody has any. Even better, it could be broken up into sections and expanded. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]