Talk:Kars4Kids

Link between Kars 4 Kids/J.O.Y. and Oorah

The 2007 Form 990 (latest publicly available) [1] shows that J.O.Y. expended a total of $8,395,252 on Program services (line 13), 100% of which was a grant to Oorah (line 22b and its attachment on page 17). That link is significant and needs to be part of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk • contribs)

Statement sourced to dead link

The statement "Kars4Kids is often the target of pranks and the victim of faulty reporting" is sourced to a dead link. The statement needs to be properly sourced or rewritten so it won't be removed. --CliffC (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Riddled with bias

If you examine the scam accusations/reports on the web (there are 42 on complaintsboard.com alone, searching for "kars4kids" as well as "kars 4 kids" and eliminating redundancies), this page reads like a propaganda flyer. In my experience, any time you google an organization and the first suggestion that comes up is "[organization] scam", then there's something bad going on. Reading through those reports , then looking at this article, you can tell the page is more of a defense than a balanced NPOV report of the full situation. The article lists plenty of true facts, but the omissions allow them to snowball a defense against accusations and complaints. I'm not saying the reverse should exist, but it just seems very far from NPOV.

I look at Wikipedia articles as an absolutely invaluable objective balance; I run here first instead of investigating something on my own, because other people have usually done that work. In this case, I would not have been happy if I'd looked up kars4kids only here and found this article. Because I haven't had an experience with them directly and am extremely respective of all religions (and also other factors) I feel this is a very objective opinion. (I ran into this began I've worked their jingle into an acoustic guitar cover, and now I'm debating what to do with it.) As to why it's one-ended, I'm sure it has something to do with that an organization prone to dishoesty is excellent with marketing, hence are more apt and skilled at editing such articles. That's my theory, anyway. Squish7 (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I want to correct this post; not all of the "complaints" I mentioned were negative; the search I see counted comments to complaints, a handful positive, but it looks like the majority were negative. Are internet sites where people complain a valid source of stating there exists controversy? E.g. can one say "X negative complaints exist; source: complaintsboard.com". It seems this is the best proof of complaints; or does someone actually write an article documenting those people to be valid source? I can't stand scams, or anything scam-esque.

Follow up question... is it standard practice to leave an answered "helpme" question up, or do people often delete them once answered? I suppose it's a factor of whether the question contributed to the discussion of the over all topic....? Thanks for any help. Squish7 (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article and fix things, of course.

Information from a 'complaints website' is generally inappropriate. Unless the complaint itself has received media attention, it doesn't warrant a mention. Imagine if, for example, we listed all complaints about Microsoft? Similarly, your searching for complaints would be considered original research. In other words: if a newspaper/news-website or something has written an article about complaints, then it should probably be included; if not, it probably shouldn't be.

Apologies for all the 'probably' things, but on Wikipedia there are no firm rules, and any specific suggestion for any article is always open for discussion

If there are different opinions on a subject, then we need to aim to present a fair representation of all 'reasonably widely held' opinions, as long as there are reliably-sources for them - being particularly careful to avoid undue weight.

If you are struggling to address neutrality concerns on an article, you can get help on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

In response to the followup-question: If you feel the question is answered, you can either remove the helpme, or convert it to {{tn|helpme}} (as I did above), or you can change it to {{subst:helpme-helped}} - I'll put one of those here, and it'll appear over on the right.

In general, it is best if you use {{helpme}} on your own user-talk page, not on article talk pages - because it's you asking for help, not really a discussion about improving the article.

 Chzz  ►  16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Several statements cannot be verified or are from unreliable sources. There is undue weight toward alleged controversies.

• The Wall Street Journal article does not quote NY attorney general as investigating this organization. His true quote is that he won't comment on any investigations.
• Oorah is not under investigation for tax evasion; according to the source, they simply requested exemption as a non-profit.
• The NY attorney general was not specifically investigating Oorah. The investigation was industry-wide.
• There is no verifiable source for the statement by Widow Cockrum.
• Statements sourced to a blog and RipOffReport are not reliable, as discussed previously on this talk page.

And so on. Yammie2009 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Statements have been verified and are from sources that are at least as reliable as the ones Kars4Kids used to build a Wiki page to advertise their business. There is undue weight towards obscuring that their legitimacy as a charity has been called into question by numerous attorney generals.
• Kars4Kids admits to being under investigation in a press release sent to one of the sites they advertise on here: http://matzav.com/kars4kids-applauds-ny-state-car-donation-investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99apples (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) User: 99apples

Third opinion (February 2013)

Hi both/all: You (someone? - this is unclear) requested a third opinion on WP:THIRD about this article and I hope I can help. I'm in a different country, I have no relevant religious links, and I've never heard of this organisation before. My suggestions are:

• This article, as stands, needs significant editing (almost certainly starting again).
• It needs to focus on this organisation's notability, not what it does or doesn't do (although clearly both are linked).
• From my own brief research through a general Google search it seems that it is notable for a catchy advertising campaign - this should be mentioned.
• Likewise, it's known for some formal judgements criticising its practices. These are a serious matter (particularly in terms of notablility) and should have some very considerable prominence in the article.
• You aren't likely to agree on a lead section for the article which says what the organisation does and doesn't do - I suggest that this section is no more than 2 sentences, and that it says what the organisation claims to do and makes clear the religious affiliation. A second lead paragraph or further 1 or 2 sentences should say that it's known for the two reasons I've given.
• It should be allowed that a later short section saying what the organisation 'claims' to do should be free from any negative angle.
• Much of the current article is self-promoting - containing content which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. For it to include such content there should be references to the (written, verifiable) positive opinions of other people about the organisation.
• Critical content should certainly be clear and obvious, but should also be toned down a little - equally being about the written verifiable opinions of others. For instance the sentence "The statement is difficult to locate because it occurs on one of the minor pages of the site..." is the opinion of an editor and has no place on Wikipedia.

I very much hope this opinion is of use. Good luck with your editing. Rowmn (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (This moved from the top of the page to a more appropriate position February 12th 2013) Update and note to other editors: there seems to have been no response to this third opinion since I gave it, and clearly is ongoing tension over this article - my suggestion is that more intense moderation is required. Rowmn (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Biased Editing

I would hope that some other admins or editors would look at the users who have edited this page to see that most have been started for the sole purpose of editing bias into Kars4Kids. If the organization was accused of non payment of wages, than the settlement of that case is as necessary as the accusation. If there is a claim that someone said bad things about Kars4Kids at the NY Comicon, you need evidence. I can just make up quotes too.

This page is riddled with prejudice from someone or people with clear agendas to not merely show the problems with Kars4Kids, but to deny the facts as they pertain to setting the record straight Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edited according to third opinion

Edited article with suggestions from third opinion. Removed dispute templates.--Yammie2009 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage admins to look into Ooorah and Kars4Kids (currently under investigation in NY, NJ and NM by attorney generals in those three state) to note that Judae1 (Juda S. Engelmayer) is in the employ of Oorah/Kars4Kids as a PR advisor; that other edits meant to cover up Kars4Kids crimes and investigations into same have been made by Oorah/Kars4Kids employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traifahs (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel that any of the edits I made were misleading or intended to impart a one sided view. I added closure with a bona-fide article to the construction related charge with report of the settlement, and I left the article and point about the suit, and I also removed a claim that was made via word of mouth to a single person with no other witnesses. There was nothing wrong with my edits. We should be commending the editors here for taking a more active role in watching to be sure that the edits made by singularly purposed usernames intended to tell a one sided tale, rather than keep this page encyclopedic, are stopped.

Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edits as such, and commend you on your obvious (to me) attempt at impartiality—but am only concerned with a balanced article for our encyclopedia. The fact that you are a member of the organization(s) has been thrown out there and, if true, should preclude you from further editing of the article. Are you saying that you are not connected to either of these organizations? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To User:Traifahs

Transcluded from Talk:Kars4Kids#Biased_Editing

I have soft-rolled-back your edits to the decidedly less POV-riddled version after recent edits as a result of a request for comment. The article now stands a fairly-balanced piece. You may have a bone to pick with this organization, he may think the opposite; however, Wikipedia is not the place for advancement of your (or his) ideologies. This is an encyclopedia, not a soap box. I have reviewed the article as it now stands, and in my opinion, it is in a more encyclopedic; more balanced; and more factual (although incomplete) state.

I will add this same warning to Judae1's and Yammie2009's pages as well. Additions of any non-cited statement(s) will be removed. Wholesale reverting of the re-written version may result in either of you being blocked from editing here.

This needs to stop now. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Although researching an article's history is difficult, please be careful who is accused of biased editing. My only concern has been observing Wikipedia procedures. I continue to assume good faith though I've been accused a few times of being paid by the article's subject. I intend to remove the conflict of interest template as the accused editor has not been a major contributor; he was merely reverting continued unfounded edits and the accusation originates from the same editor who accused me.

I am also removing the current allegations section because the allegations are not found in the reference. The reference mentions investigations from 2010 which are not related to real estate. Those investigations are already included in the introduction and criticism section regarding the religion of the organization's beneficiaries.--Yammie2009 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Redundant statements to be removed?

The fact that the children are Jewish is repeated four times. This seems too much weight on a single issue for such a short article. I believe the statements are remnants of biased editing. The statement seems fair in two sections: background and criticism.--Yammie2009 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leade, lede, or what have you

The Lede of an article is a summary of the main body of the article. The lede for this article was fine tuned in late January/early February to over-come the POV-war which was ongoing at the time. Please discuss changes here to the lede before changing the article. Also, Kars is a Jewish organization, so the fact that the adjective is used four times in conjunction with kids is not, IMHO, surprising. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be descriptive of what the organization does, not an incident which resulted in a fine in 2009 from activities in 2006 & 2007. It is undue balance. Wouldnt dispute that it belongs in the article just not the lead. And it doesnt seem Kars is a Jewish charity. Funds to care go to a jewish charity. Its different if you want to say that on Oorah page. Changes are necessary to the lead. Thanks much. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD to understand Wikipedia standard article structure. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Thus, significant material will appear in both the lead and the body. --CliffC (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Have read it. If the organization raises $30 Million annually, that would mean $120MM since 2009. Why then would something about a $50K fine 4 years ago be relevant to be in the lead? Its not worthy of the lead (although is worthy of the article). 165.254.85.130 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Lakewood, NJ

What is significance of Lakewood, New Jersey? You want to say its headquartered in NJ but why list some obscure town. Not wiki worthy. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not? This is an encyclopedia, sourced detail is encouraged. Why would it matter if Lakewood, New Jersey were "obscure" (which it's not)? --CliffC (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you insist on having it on the side descriptor, perhaps but it is not worthy of being in the 2nd sentence of a $30 Million organization. Its not key to their operations. And yes a town of 90,000 people is indeed quite obscure in contrast to a $30 Million org. No reason @all to have it in the lead. Lets agree to keep on side and not lead or can go to dispute boards. Would also intend to challenge the disclosure which you have in the lead and also doesnt belong there. It doesnt define the organization. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The first (not second) sentence of General Motors states "...is an American multinational automotive corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan...". That such a large organization as K4K is headquartered in such a small town as Lakewood just makes the fact more interesting and encyclopedic. If you want to go to some sort of dispute resolution feel free, but please understand I may not be available for back-and-forth during the day as working on Wikipedia and K4K is not the main claim on my time. --CliffC (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)