Talk:Royal National Institute of Blind People

message: The section “History” says : “In 2002, RNIB membership was introduced and the organisation's name changed to Royal National Institute of the Blind. In June 2007 the organisation changed its name again, to Royal National Institute of Blind People.”
The source (History of RNIB) doesn’t say the same thing : “Our name was officially changed to the Royal National Institute for the Blind in 1953, having received the Royal Charter in 1949. In 2002 our name changed to the Royal National Institute of Blind People rather than 'for' blind people when we became a Membership organisation.”
Where is the truth?
--Chrismagnus (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name “Royal National Institute of Blind People”: 2002 or 2007 ? 

message: User:PlatinumSpheres keeps adding content to this article that's unsuitable for an encyclopedia article meant to be useful and informative to the general public.
* Articles about organizations don't normally go into their internal committee structure; Wikipedia readers have no use for trivia about an organization has a "people committee" or a "nominating committee", and even less so for the composition of those committees. This is the sort of information that belongs on the organization's own web presences. This article is not one of those: see WP:NOTWEBHOST. I've removed the material but the other editor has restored it.
* The same editor has added, and then re-added after I removed it, a bunch of information about visual health in the UK that is irrelevant to this article. It's as though the editor is using the article to speak on behalf of RNIB, which isn't allowed. Again, this article is not a web property of RNIB, and Wikipedia articles need to stay on-topic: see WP:COATRACK.
This material should be removed. The article is already tagged as promotional. It shouldn't devolve further into a PR vehicle. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsuitable content 

message: Please see the abovementioned article. It's subject seems to have become defunct and it's website refers readers to https://www.rnib.org.uk/newsagent 
It appears that TNAUK was taken over by RNIB or else RNIB now offers the services formerly offered by TNAUK, without an actual takeover. Editors who are more familiar with the subject should deal with this by merging the TNAUK page into this one or otherwise updating both pages to explain what actually happened. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom]] 

message: In addition to this article's WP:NOT brochure-esque tone there's an inquiry by the Charity Commission for England and Wales into the organisation's failings in its duty of care over its benefactors some of whom were minors. One of its centres, the RNIB Pears Centre for Specialist Learning was closed down due to allegations of child abuse. The Charity Commission for England and Wales's report is available here. There is also an article in the British Medical Journal (paywalled) and at least two articles in The Guardian 
*  
* --𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Update needed

message: Reason being the entire section (like a lot of this page) is sourced entirely to this organisation's website and most of the citations link to dead pages and pulling them out of the archives would be counter productive.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested removal of the Campaigns section