Talk:NSPCC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: How much of its income does the NSPCC use vs how much it says it uses

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scotland? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links to organisations they are members of 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NSPCC.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: List of satanic ritual abuse allegations

message: 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)
replies: text: 2006. --BozMo talk 13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: "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. 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.]. 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)
thread_title: RSPCA Link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Fair point Neon. --BozMo talk 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820204159/http://www.nspcc.org.uk:80/WhatWeDo/AboutTheNSPCC/aboutthenspcc_wda36522.html to http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/aboutthenspcc/aboutthenspcc_wda36522.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530082253/http://www.childabusecommission.com:80/rpt/05-01.php to http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/05-01.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130506161726/http://awards.prca.org.uk:80/2012winners to http://awards.prca.org.uk/2012winners
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106043217/http://nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediaresources/faqs_wda33299.html to http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediaresources/faqs_wda33299.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130509064622/http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/the-work-we-do/services-for-children/direct-services-for-children-and-families_wda72290.html to http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/the-work-we-do/services-for-children/direct-services-for-children-and-families_wda72290.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060520093811/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060302/debtext/60302-18.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060302/debtext/60302-18.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive http://webarchive.proni.gov.uk/20131024181426/http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx to http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology of early events 

message: :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)
replies: text: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME and British news sources. 87.225.105.108 (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 December 2023