Talk:WAVE Trust

Untitled

Please would you kindly help make this Wikipedia friendly. I am at a loss what to do in particular having looked at similar entries for other children's and international charities. Many thanks

I note the point about Peacock terms but all such terms are either in references or quotes. I cannot find any unsubstantiated self-promotion as such but happy if others would check too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Khan Zand of Shiraz (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The article does not currently cite any sources to establish that this charity is notable. This Google News search throws up just three small mentions in the media:

• George Hosking 'from the Wave Trust' did something
• About 5% of this Times Online article
• One sentence in this Reuters news item

-- John of Reading (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two extra sources in the AFD discussion -- John of Reading (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2025

There are untrue and libellous statements posted by an ex-employee. Please remove the paragraphs which begin

Wave Trust attacted national attention A Freedom of Information request

(redacted) ~2025-38527-95 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done I have removed the information, which was only sourced to primary sources, not independent reliable sources. Be advised that you are not permitted to make legal threats on Wikipedia or edit Wikipedia if you have a legal action underway against Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure this organization merits an article at all according to our criteria. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• please return the article to its pre edited state. The newspaper article is a published and independent source and the freedom of information request is a matter of public record from the scottish government. The charity are attempting to cover these things up as they place it in an unflattering state. ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Government records are primary sources. I can't examine the newspaper source as it is paywalled. If someone else can, please comment. The other side says that disgruntled former employees are spreading information. The motivation of either side isn't necessarily relevant to what we summarize. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

how can the information obtained from a freedom of information request not be an objective and factual source? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

How can it be verified? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Because organisations are legally requested to disclose all the information they hold in response to a subject access request, therefore it's factual. ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Who verifies if organizations followed the law when fulfilling a request? 331dot (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

the information commissioners office(ICO) ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

And who verifies that they did their job properly? What I'm getting at is that primary sources are not verified by independent sources, sources not affiliated with the government. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

please be advised that suggesting that somebody has committed criminal or civil offences, without any legal evidence, is libel ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any statements in this article that allege any individual committed a crime; such statements would violate our own policies(WP:BLP) as well. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Its not the article, it's the comments in this chat forum itself which make reference to potential breaches of the 2006 fraud act ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I see the allegation at the top of this thread. Given that it's from an unregistered account, the only remedy would be to apply a restriction to this talk page, barring unregistered and new accounts from any comments on this page that are not requests to make a (specific) change to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I was confused. I have suppressed all the edits with that post in it. Maybe this will serve as a warning. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you, can you restore the page to the condition it was in prior to that request being made now please? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

What part of "I have removed the information, which was only sourced to primary sources, not independent reliable sources," is unclear to you? —C.Fred (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

How can a newspaper article not be a reliable source? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

if you are going down the 'who watches the watchers?' argument then how can any source be truly independent? Even scientific journals have confirmation bias as it's impossible to include everything ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what secondary sources choose to say about a topic, not what primary sources say about a topic, as primary sources have not undergone an editorial review by an editor nor have they been subjected to journalistic standards and processes. Secondary sources like news reports and peer reviewed scientific journals have undergone review by people other than the author. It's then up to readers of Wikipedia articles that cite those sources to review them and decide what they think about what they read. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, only that it is possible to verify what is presented. Primary sources are only acceptable in certain situations. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

So a news article is a legitimate source? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2025

This article needs to be restored to its pre edited format as the sources comes from a newspaper article and a freedom of information request ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like the article returned to how it was prior to its previous edit. The information comes from a freedom of information request and a newspaper article ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The most recent edit corrected overlinking. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Freedom of information requests are, at best, primary sources. Further, since they aren't published, there is no way to verify them. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  if the information obtained by a freedom of information request is a record of factual information held by a organisation, how can it not be a reliable source of information? Furthermore, it was published on the Scottish government website ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  After looking at the publication, I'm not even clear how the document is discussing WAVE Trust directly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  its a record of correspondence between the CEO of WAVE Trust- the subject of this article- and the first minister of Scotland, John Swinney MSP, discussing a potential meeting ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  In which case, it is at best a primary source and of limited value in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  This article is about WAVE Trust, not its CEO. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  What is the difference between WAVE trust and the actions of its CEO when he is acting in his capacity as the CEO? On that logic, nothing about what Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did whilst acting in their capacities as the CEO of apple and IBM should be on the Apple and IBM pages ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  But the material in the article would not be based on, say, correspondence between Gates and a cabinet secretary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  But it would deal with correspondence Gates had with members of Congress or the senate whilst asking in his capacity as the CEO of IBM ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, it would be the correspondence, and that is not permissible as source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  so you could mention the fact that there was correspondence but not actually include the correspondence itself ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  No, we need an independent source that describes the fact that there was correspondence and what that actually means. Not just documentation of the existence of the correspondence. The White House receives probably hundreds of thousands of correspondences a day, the mere fact that any individual attempts to correspond with Donald Trump is meaningless. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  so a newspaper article is a legitimate source? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Usually, as long as the newspaper has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you haven't really said, do you have or had any relationship with this organization? 331dot (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-post-dundee/20220925/281908777013591 - then this article should be added back onto the page ~2025-40651-13 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What is it that you want that article to cite? And do you or did you have a relationship with this Trust, yes or no please? 331dot (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

no relationship with this charity/ trust and the article cites that the organisation attracted national attention for its view that it does not consider child sexual abuse to be an adverse childhood experience and this caused the cross party group for the prevention and healing of adverse childhood experiences which was set up in the scotland parliament to dispand ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The piece you cite does not say that at all. It says that it was the view of a person who resigned that "was con­cerned Wave Trust failed to con­sider sexual abuse an adverse child­hood exper­i­ence." It is later said that "Wave Trust oper­a­tions dir­ector George Hosk­ing said it was now includ­ing child­hood sexual abuse in its pro­gramme." 331dot (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

so you agree that it was reported that somebody was concerned that the charity, at the time of the article, did not consider that sexual abuse childhood as an adverse childhood experience? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it was reported that a person was concerned about that, resigned due to that concern which broke up a government committee, and that the trust decided to explicitly include sexual abuse in its definition of an adverse childhood experience. It doesn't say what you claim it said. "National attention" is not claimed anywhere in the article. (which I take to mean Scotland and not the whole UK) It also doesn't say that this person's viewpoint was the actual position of the organization. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

So you would be happy to include a link to the article on this page which states that a person was concerned about child sexual abuse not being explicitly defined as an adverse childhood experience and the committee dispaned because of those same concerns? ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm deeply skeptical that this organization merits an article at all, but I agree with saying exactly what sources say. Feel free to make an edit request. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like to request that this article(https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-post-dundee/20220925/281908777013591) is added back to the back with the following summary.

A cross-party group (CPG) in the Scottish Parliament which focused on the prevention and healing of Adverse Childhood experiences and was set up by Wave Trust entered turmoil in 2022 following a series of high profile resignations. Among those who stepped down was Dr Suzanne Zeedyk, a prominent child trauma expert, along with former and current convenors Sue Webber (Conservative) and Rona Mackay (SNP), and SNP MSP Karen Adams. The resignations were driven by shared concerns about the group’s close involvement with Wave Trust and its 70/30 campaign, the campaign to reduce ACEs by 70% by 2030. Critics argued that the charity’s approach was overly narrow, particularly its initial failure to explicitly include childhood sexual abuse as an adverse childhood experience. Dr Zeedyk stating that tackling ACEs required a broader, more inclusive approach and she questioned both the feasibility and rationale of the 70% reduction target. Other departing MSPs echoed concerns about governance and the exclusion of sexual abuse survivors. The resignations prompted scrutiny from the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee, which sought clarification on the group’s leadership and structure before reviewing its status.

It was later confirmed that the group had dispaned. ~2025-31641-66 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I marked this as a formal edit request so others will see it; otherwise few would have seen it. I tried directing you to WP:ER but I was not clear. Apologies. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you ~2025-40147-57 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made.

Because of WP:TA#Account_expiration, I am mentioning @~2025-40147-57 as well. To avoid using temporary accounts; and to avoid this problem, I suggest you make an account. NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 05:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If you look in this forum, one of your colleagues has confirmed that the newspaper article is a reliable source ~2025-42393-63 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong template. Could you provide inline citations? NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 16:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

In 2022, the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group (CPG) on the prevention and healing of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), established with input from the Wave Trust, experienced a series of resignations. Those who stepped down included developmental psychologist Dr Suzanne Zeedyk, former and current convenors Sue Webber MSP (Conservative) and Rona Mackay MSP (SNP), and SNP MSP Karen Adams.

The resignations followed concerns about the group’s association with the Wave Trust and its "70/30 campaign", which aimed to reduce ACEs by 70 percent by 2030. Critics questioned the campaign’s approach and highlighted the exclusion of childhood sexual abuse from the group’s definition of ACEs.

Dr Zeedyk emphasized the need for a broader approach to ACEs and raised doubts about both the feasibility and rationale of the 70 percent reduction target. Other departing MSPs cited governance issues and a lack of consultation with survivors of sexual abuse.

Following the resignations, the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee sought clarification regarding the group’s leadership and organisational structure before reviewing its status as a registered cross-party group. ~2025-42898-33 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done NuggestNugtalk to me!contribs logsthey
them 16:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

edit request

Hello,

I would like to add the fact that, in 2022, The CEO of WAVE Trust made an offer of a charitable donation to the MSP John Swinney in exchange for a meeting. This is confirmed by this written question - https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/questions-and-answers/question?ref=S7W-01524 ~2026-42261-56 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Parlimentary records/transcripts are primary sources; they can't be used for potentially contentious information about living people. You would need an independent reliable source that reports on the parlimentary proceedings, like a news report- especially since a quid pro quo is potentially criminal behavior. (WP:BLPCRIME) 331dot (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)