Jump to content

Talk:NSPCC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why bother tagging an article that is impossible to fix?

[edit]

As you can see below, this article gets people riled up and not thinking straight. That's why it has no introduction, and why there is no possibility of fixing the situation. Some lunatic with a grudge will just come along and remove stuff they don't like. You might as well delete articles like this, they are worthless.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== Neutral Point Of View ==opportunities

I've removed the following:

a pattern of growth that indicates either that the NCPCC is becoming increasingly effective at discovering cruelty to children, or that levels of cruelty are themselves on the increase (which the NSPCC has evidently been powerless to prevent), or simply that people have become a lot more generous, and the money has to be given away somehow

It's pointless to speculate on why the spending has gone up. Perhaps the NSPCC is doing more work which was previously being done by other agencies. Perhaps it was underpaying its staff before. Perhaps it always knew of more work that should have been done but was in no position to do it. Perhaps the growth of the Internet has created a need for more work to combat online paedophiles. Perhaps... any number of other reasons. Let's just report the facts, that income and spending have risen, and leave the original research out. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article his highly critical of the NSPCC in that it details a catalogue of failures but does not deem to mention any statistics about successes or positive actions the NSPCC has taken. I don't even know what good work the NSPCC does after reading this article, perhaps it really does not protect children at all and it's only function is to campaign for gays, separate children from their fathers, passively imitate an authority and attract more money to promote it's anti-father, homosexuality encouraging agenda - but I doubt it somehow. Someone who can be bothered should go and find what the NSPCC actually does for children since after reading this article I have no clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what good work the NSPCC does That seems to be the major concern that the mass media have been so critical of. The fact that there is no really way to measure the success of a pressure group. The lead gives a basic outline. This isn't a NPOV issue --neonwhite user page talk 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this article today and agree that it seems a little 'unbalanced'. I've added a little about what they actually do, based on my knowledge and their website, but the criticism section seems very large and has lots of weasel words scattered in it. I'm also a little concerned by how much of it is based on articles in "Spiked" but that's because I'm not familiar with this source! It doesn't strike me as 'mass media' though, which leaves the Guardian as the main mass media critic. Paulbrock (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it isnt a criticism section, it is about controversial campaigning which has been much documented and reported in the media. It is fully sourced and there is no non-neutral opinion that are expressed as facts. It fairly represents the amount of controversy. It is not primarly bases on article in "Spiked" (which is a verifiable publication, so it wouldnt matter if it was). Sources include the BBC and the Guardian Newspaper. The article published in spiked is the opinion of notable sociology professor Frank Furedi and is clearly cited as such. The reason alot of the info was removed was that it was largely self published by the charity itself and promotional in nature. (see WP:SELFPUB). It would have to be from second party sources to be acceptable. --neonwhite user page talk 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which part of
"The NSPCC lobbies the government on issues relating to child welfare, and create campaigns for the general public, with the intention of raising awareness of child protection issues."
needs a citation - that the NSPCC lobbies the government, that it creates campaigns, or the intention behind the campaigns? Surely only the NSPCC is able to say what the intention of its campaigns are? Is there anything in the article currently which falls foul of WP:SELFPUB? - I can't see why it's been tagged as such.
The point I was making about Spiked was that it seems like the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to one side of the argument without documenting NSPCC's responses. The article reads as though NSPCC is universally vilified, a point made by 81.109.12.253 Paulbrock (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can use common sense to a certain extent but it's not really appropriate to include material of an overly promotional nature because it's not known for it's accuracy. Concerning the 'Satanic abuse scandal', i haven't heard of the charity ever addressing this or giving a response. If there is only one side that can be sourced then it may seem like its getting undue weight but it the fact that it is the only view that is sourced means it isnt. If you can find second party articles that praise the NSPCC then they would help the article but as i pointed out above, its lack of measurable success (which i'm sure is true about all pressure groups) is one of the frequent criticisms. It has indeniably come under alot of criticism in the media as the sources point out. --neonwhite user page talk 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look through the history of this article I can see why huge amounts of effectively PR copy have had to be removed. I disagree on your point about self-published material being inaccurate though - the NSPCC website and reports are perfectly valid sources to quote objective information such as 177 local services being run or x helplines are run, or x cases were investigated last year. It gets trickier for subjective stuff like "this part of legislation was put in place because of the NSPCC" which there seems to be a lot of on the NSPCC site! Can we lose the self-published sources tag, or do you still think there is an issue? Paulbrock (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Also*, having taken a look at the latest accounts, around 50% of expenditure is on projects (£62million - inc helplines)compared to around 25% on influencing and public education - the article/discussion is perhaps too focused on the pressure group side of things, which is a small part of NSPCC work. Paulbrock (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for this? --neonwhite user page talk 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NSPCC Report and Accounts 2007. [1] Paulbrock (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree with it or not it is wikipedia policy that self published sources are only acceptable it certain circumstances and they must be carefuly used. We have no guarantee that the info on their site (a site primarily design for promotion) is accurate and it certainly cannot be objective seen as they are publishing it. As i said common sense can be used with info that is not contentious. The part about the legislation really highlights the problems with measuring the success of pressure groups. It's nearly impossible to say how much, if indeed any, effect the group's actions had on that event. Extending the history section may improve the article. It seems quite brief for a 120 year old charity. --neonwhite user page talk 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the policy, just not your interpretation of it. C'mon now, are you really suggesting that despite having to meet Charity Commision regulations and being audited by Deloitte and Touche, you don't believe NSPCC's reporting? Are there any sources that dispute it? We have no guarantee that the info on *any* site is accurate, and nothing I have mentioned or quoted is contentious. (Besides, pretty much ALL websites are primarily for promotion) It's just the same as citing microsoft.com on Microsoft, a Featured Article. Paulbrock (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the material they publish is done so with the intention of promoting the charity, this is exactly why the SPS policy exists. Self published advertising isn't a reliable source. The policy is clear that self-published are only admissable if they are not contentious and self serving. Wikipedia is based on third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not self published material, reporting in the media etc and not self published and have to be fact checked that is why they are considered of better quality. Promotional material, however, is known for being exaggerated. The microsoft article is largely based in second party sources not SPS, the few instance where SPS are used is for non-contentious facts. The fact that Bill Gates founded microsoft is hardly contentious or self serving but to repeat the NSPCCs claims that they have influenced laws and policies to promote children's rights and their safety is contentious and self serving, that's what the policy is about. --neonwhite user page talk 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we can't use NSPCC's website as a source for them "influencing laws and policies". We CAN use it to say, "NSPCC lobbies the government on issues....with the intention of raising awareness of child protection issues." Surely this is no more contentious than Bill Gates founded microsoft? Otherwise we're entering into conspiracy theories, about what the NSPCC *really* does with its money and what its agenda is. Paulbrock (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think it is fair to accept their statement of their aims (which is already elsewhere in the article). --BozMo talk 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that isn't suspect should be fine but we have to be careful with some of the claims that aren't common sense. "NSPCC lobbies the government on issues" is far more open to question to the fact that microsoft was founded by bill gates. As far as I am concerned it isn't contentious but anyone could ask for proof that they actually do what they say. --neonwhite user page talk 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the recent edit where a press-release-style paragraph mentioning appeals for money was added, before it was reverted with the explanation "inappropriate sps". I don't object to this reversion: I was about to query the previous edit myself and suggest at least a rewrite from a more objective viewpoint, but it did raise a question which I think ought to be addressed. Can the public still donate to Childline separately? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the paragraph was a) much of it didnt seem to be sourced and read like a commentary, for instance "The NSPCC can never hope to end cruelty to children by itself" is an uncited opinion and b) press releases as sources are self published, not independant and are usually promotional and c) we have to remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an advertisement. The info needs to be factual and relevent in the context of the history of the organisation. A campaign is not necessarily important enough to be included simply on the basis of it being the most recent and it having a sizeable paragraph dedicated to it may unbalance the article. A list of or a section dedicated to significant campaigns might be a better way to go. --neon white talk
Yes. Most charities will take restricted donations which are dedicated to funding particular projects and the same report referred to in the text which said the Full Stop campaign was £250m of publicity seeking without helping a single child actually includes a donation restricted to childline amongst their recommendations (so presumably its possible). That part of the report did not seem to get as much media attention so is less notable on our rules. But we ought to dig up some statement from NSPCC that they will take such a donation I guess. --BozMo talk 07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much of its income does the NSPCC use vs how much it says it uses

[edit]

In its accounts, NSPCC claims that it gives away 79% of its income, but doing the sums based on their figures it comes to only 75%. Matt Stan 10:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the accounts, the 79% figure is claimed as a percentage of the total spent (£106.9 million) rather than the total raised (£112 million), the difference being transferred to reserves. So their claim is accurate, but so is this article - it's just a different way of expressing things. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pete

Neither figure is in the article and I cannot believe they say "gives away": what do they say? Proportion used on "projects"? --BozMo talk 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland?

[edit]

Could/should it be mentioned nearer the top of the article that it does not really cover Scotland? There have been many cases where they have been given/inherited large donations from Scottish doners who may have not realized that there was a separate charity covering Scotland (Children1st)

I was tempted to replace "UK charity" with "is a charity in England and Wales and Northern Ireland" (similar to the rspca article where a similar situation exists with the seperate sspca covering Scotland), however I see that Childline which does cover the whole UK is part of Nspcc now - so deleting "UK charity" may no longer be appropriate 172.188.60.230 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I would agree that this ought to be made clear, and I think the current version of the article does this tolerably early on: however I do think it worth mentioning that Scottish donors may have other reasons for favouring the NSPCC over Children 1st/ RSSPCC. The RSSPCC have been even more controversial than the NSPCC, and to the best of my knowledge have never publicly apologised for their role in the Orkney satanic panic scandal (they changed their name a while later instead). Childline Scotland is now run by Children First, so I don't think there would be any problem with stating that the NSPCC covers England, Wales and N. Ireland. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the explanation that the NSPCC does not operate in Scotland should be put into the introduction. I put in something along the lines of "The NSPCC operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands", but it was removed because apparently 'the UK implies this'. I would not assume that "the UK" implied the Channel Islands, and I would assume it included Scotland - I don't understand this argument. As the person above me has said, Childline in Scotland is also organised by Children 1st.

There are two options - you could say (except Scotland), but I think this is a bit negative, so I think including the places it *does* operate is better Grogipher (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NSPCC is registered in scotland as charity number SC037717 and very much exists as a charity in scotland the only thing it doesnt do is operate community services there which is only a small part of the organisation. It operates as a UK charity and it's adequate enough to put that. There is nothing in the article yet that mentions links with scotland, this needs to go in the activities section before it can even be consider for a summmary in the lead. --neon white talk 20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep childline operates in Scotland and the infamous TV adverts run there as well. These represent more than 50% of the NSPCC these days AFAICT and lack of one other type of program in one region doesn't justify the long intro on geography. --BozMo talk 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There seem to be quite a few coalitions (ECPATS, End Child Poverty etc.) in which the NSPCC are participating. Personally I don't think we should link to all these from this page: the notable ones should have their own page. Anyone disagree? --BozMo talk 11:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NSPCC.jpg

[edit]

Image:NSPCC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure if they should go in the article

[edit]

But the Advertising Standards website lists a whole raft of complaints received about NSPCC mailing and TV adverts (typically by several hundred people each time), and there are a couple on the Ofcom site. Most complaints I guess go to the charities commission which doesn't publish complaints but we could get details under the freedom of information act. Of course the ASA is an advertisers body which never upholds the complaints and rarely do against anyone (although one ad targeted at children was moved to after the watershed) but the number of complaints is rather distinctive for a UK charity. --BozMo talk 09:31, 29 November 2007.

List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

[edit]

I have added this link since the final section of the article deals with the problem. I notice that the last revert alleged that this link was POV. How can that be if it is already in the article? Please state your reasons for POV or do not revert again. Peterlewis (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw both edits and thought about them. I was wondering about a partial revert on your first edit. I do not think there is a POV issue but there probably is an undue weight issue (see WP:WEIGHT). For this reason I am inclined to agree although the NSPCC was as involved on paper with the Orkneys as with Rochdale, including both unbalances the article too much in favour of one issue, so as the link to the Rochdale ones has more recent press coverage and is easier to substantiate I think sticking to that part is reasonable. However, I would agree that the link you put in probably ought to stay because it is directly relevant to the article content. SO I support the middle ground now represented. --BozMo talk 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference on undue weight "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--BozMo talk 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy

[edit]

The History section says that Childline merged into the NSPCC in 2006, the Activities section says 1996. Which is correct? -89.168.145.243 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006. --BozMo talk 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the merger was brought about by Childline's funding crisis which was attributed partly to the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004) and the relief efforts which followed attracting a great deal of charitable donations which might otherwise have gone elsewhere, I assume that 2006 must be correct. I also seem to recall a great deal of NSPCC advertising from around 2004-5 onwards, which may have a lot to do with their ability to survive such difficulties while Childline, which dedicated its resources to getting on with the job rather than publicity, was forced into a merger to safeguard its future. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Childline declared funding crises repeatedly (led by Ms Rantzen) as a means to try to get headlines and fundraise, almost since it was founded you can find dozens on google. By its 5th year in 2002 [2] for example. It wasn't just the tsunami they tried to tag on to crises everywhere else by claiming it was causing them suffering. NSPCC was growing rapidly over the period (as were many other children's charities of course). --BozMo talk 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

"The first child cruelty case in Britain was brought by the RSPCA, which was founded in 1824. The court charge list in the trial described the affected child as "a small animal" because at the time there were no laws in Britain to protect children from mistreatment. The case was successful."

This is mawkish mythology. Henry Bergh a leader of the animal humane movement in the United States and founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), was approached to help an abused child.[3] The SPCA investigated the matter and brought the case before the court where it was contended successfully that the child Mary Ellen Wilson was an animal.[4]]. Bergh's UK counterpart, John Collam, undertook similar cooperation with child advocates and in 1887 the SPCA was credited by the founder of NSPCC as follows: 'Your Society, the RSPCA, has given birth to a kindred institution whose object is the protection of defenceless children.'SJB (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


First sentence

[edit]

Anyone agree that given the balance of the article (which seems to reflect a media balance about the NSPCC) the word "controversial" should be added to the first sentence? --BozMo talk 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so. I'd disagree that the media generally views the NSPCC as a controversial organisation. The NSPCC is a very popular charity, with laudable aims to help children and end child abuse; therefore a few controversial episodes documented in the article don't neccessarily make it a "controversial" organisation as such overall. Georgethe23rd (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to leave the additional word out then but you clearly don't inhabit the same planet or read the same media as me. I would say the NSPCC was probably the most disliked and most controversial charity in the UK although neither is saying much, perhaps. They certainly seem to attract far more complaints than anyone else. --BozMo talk 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not disliked enough for them to receive £147.2 million last year, most of it from monthly donations from individuals. I think every large charity has its critics, and the NSPCC is very large and very criticised. But if we added "controversial" to the top of this article, we'd need to consider adding it to the top of Barnardos too (for its occasional and highly criticised PR campaigns), and that would be daft. Georgethe23rd (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been much criticism in the media but it's not really a word to throw around. see Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy and scandal --neon white talk 13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point Neon. --BozMo talk 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of early events

[edit]

The history section claims "On 1 January 1877, the Child's Guardian, the official magazine of the Society was launched." with a source that can't easily be verified. This is several years before the first society was set up. Can anyone help clarify the timeline on this? Cloud Dragon (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children → NSPCC – Per WP:COMMONNAME and British news sources. 87.225.105.108 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose little evidence that the proposed title would increase WP:Recognizability. My own searches indicate that on Google Scholar the full title is used on first mention at least 50% of the time. (t · c) buidhe 10:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only applies to this article title that is likely to be WP:CONCISE and MOS:ACRONYM. Unlike other article titles with acronyms (e.g. NAACP), as they moved this title "RSPCA" per discussion at Talk:RSPCA#Requested move 28 October 2023. 45.5.116.242 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each acronym needs to be evaluated individually. In this case, there is a lack of evidence that most reliable sources start with the acronym and not the full name, which would indicate that the acronym was more recognizable. (t · c) buidhe 09:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NSPCC&oldid=1209446048"