Talk:Child sponsorship

message: Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the "critics" here only cite one source which happens to be a self-described leftist periodical?  At minimum, can we reference the periodical name so people don't take the "criticism" at face value?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.250.234 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ho hum. I wrote most of the paragraph and I work for a child sponsorship charity (but I was trying to be NPOV). The best reference for criticism is the text in the rough guide at the bottom of the page, which is by DFID (UK gov). Comments by charities which don't do child sponsorship seem almost certainly POV (e.g. our total admin costs are a lot lower than a prominent UK charity which says they don't do child sponsorship because of the admin costs). Also there is such a range of things called "child sponsorship" that much criticism misses the mark in many cases (sponsoring an orphan doesn't undermine the natural parents for example)...  BUT criticism exists and is notable so we should include it. Indeed, the charity I work for includes a whole page of it on our website with our responses: http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sponsor-a-child/pros-and-cons/  --BozMo talk 12:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Criticism 

message: This article is still nothing more than a dictdef.  If this is all that can become of it I say transwiki to Wiktionary and delete it.  James084 14:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said before:  Help fix it, then.  You feel strongly about keeping a lot of inadequate stuff but you never really do anything about it. I agree that this article is developing due to Park3r showing the article some love.  If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.  James084 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone with time could take the pros and cons from the Rough Guide listed and rework them in a WP context? --BozMo talk 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary Definition? 

message: Pretty much our only real references for this article are for the criticism of child sponsorship and those are opinion pieces from about 20 years ago.  Is this criticism still valid and if so has it been restated more recently? 
Also I removed a few other "references" that were simply examples of what individual organization's do.  These aren't proper references for general assertions and talking about an individual org is  undue weight unless we have some reliable independent sources to say they are leader organizations in the field.   
A couple of the in article examples were looking a little spammy so I've removed them - they weren't by themselves adding anything other than pointing readers to articles on child sponsorship orgs - and we have a list section doing that. -- SiobhanHansa 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I removed what a prior author entered:
"Child sponsorship grew in the 1990s, but in 1998 a series of Chicago Tribune articles revealed that the children allegedly being sponsored did not receive direct sponsorship."
There were no citations, and the supposed allegations almost certainly would have applied to one or a few organizations in particular that were being unscrupulous with donor funds, and no evidence is available to support the idea that misuse of funds intended to help children is widespread among the majority of child sponsorship organizations. Jaydge (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced controversy

message: In France, because of the country's traditions of civil religion, there are unusual ceremonies of secular baptisms, sometimes called republican baptisms. It could be maybe be mentioned in the article as a peculiar kind of child sponsorship.  ADM (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular baptisms

message: The URL given as the source for this change does not appear to mention child sponsorship. The claim may be right though, is there another source? --BozMo talk 09:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Save the Children in 1931

message: I can find 29 listed here  plus one mentioned as closed. Are some missing or is 35 wrong? The Don't Buy Icecream site doesn't seem to be maintained. --BozMo talk 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 35 in the UK?

message: Ref 4 states 3 million supporters and donors and half a million child sponsors Ref 6 states 4 million sponsored children? Anyway the "most prominent" sentence is thinkly disguised promo perhaps it should come out?
--BozMo talk 21:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting references on World Vision

message: Is there a better place for the block I just removed from the History section? Not sure. --BozMo talk 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not History

message: The reference given here  for new content seems to be entirely about world vision rather than child sponsorship in general so I suspect it should be reverted. Anyone disagree? --BozMo talk 10:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --BozMo talk 08:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revert

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Child sponsorship. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202065151/http://www.planusa.org/frequentlyaskedquestions to http://www.planusa.org/frequentlyaskedquestions
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified