Talk:Oaktree (foundation)

NPOV
This page reads like it was taken from the mission statement of this organisation. It needs some serious NPOV work if it is to even come close to wikipedia's standards.

Morgan Leigh 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "the worlds" first youth driven organisation? anyone else know? Australia perhaps?

I agree. The use of the first person in description of the organisation's values ("Our vision is of young people learning through partnership; young people in the developed world using and expanding their knowledge and skills to help young people in the developing world gain access to quality education") is particularly grating. --Schrodinger's Cat 01:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I am actually a member of the organisation and i'm assuming someone wrote it as a one off contribution to Wikipedia, raising awareness of the organisation. --Master Spiky 7:44 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I made this initally, and seeing as we have consensus (i think), i'll change it. Feel free to do so to. This page needs much updating... It was a rushed job to begin with...

Also? How to we take down this neturality disputed thing? (seeing as no one has deputed the need for change)

Categorization
I am removing categorization for 'international development agencies' and 'international development multilaterals'. These categories should be used for official development assistance (ODA). Multilaterals are World Bank, United Nations, European Union, while the 'agencies' category is for bilaterals such as Government of Sweden, Great Britain, USA, Japan etc. The categorization of the Oaktree Foundation as an NGO and charity appears to be both correct and sufficient. APB-CMX 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
I'm adding a tag for cleanup because the references are pretty messy. I don't know if a wikify tag would help this page too; any thoughts on that? GrainyMagazine (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh. That did require a clean up. Please let me know if you now think it's time to remove the tag. Thanks, Rangasyd (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging content from the Make Poverty History Concert, and then redirecting it to this page for the following reasons:
 * 1) No indication of independent notability for the concert, or coverage beyond primary, quite local, and unreliable sources;
 * 2) Longtime lack of sources at MPHC, including claims about living persons that I've removed as unsupported;
 * 3) Its closest connection to The Oaktree Foundation and its associates.

If anyone has a comment for or against, please leave a note here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 08:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, all the arguments of JFHJr seem perfectly reasonable and with no objections in 4 years I support the merge. Klbrain (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Oaktree (foundation). Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Oaktree Foundation → Oaktree – Organisational rebrand – Rz1785 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unambiguous. Consider Oaktree Capital Management, Oaktree Arena, OakTree Software, and Oak-tree. Oaktree should redirect to Oak Tree (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 12:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Consider Oaktree (foundation) since the unqualified name 'Oaktree' would be ambiguous. At present Oaktree redirects to Oak Tree, a DAB page. It seems fine to leave it that way. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – we haven't even been given evidence that the foundation is commonly referred to simply as Oaktree. Their branding efforts have to go full circle and affect usage before we can consider retitling.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is clearly not the primary topic, which would be a tree that is an oak. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Agree with comments above re primary topic of oak tree. Concur with suggestion of The Oaktree Foundation → Oaktree (foundation). Rangasyd (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.