Talk:Fawcett Society

Proposed changes
I propose to add a section about criticism of the Fawcett Society. I previously added the following:

"Criticism

The Fawcett Society is listed on fakecharities.org as a "fake charity", because it receives a significant proportion of its income from the British state, and lobbying the state is its key activity. This means that the state is paying to lobby itself.[2]

fakecharities.org give as an example a march organised by the Fawcett Society against Harriet Harman's 'Equality Bill' on June 8 2009, despite Harriet Harman actually being a supporter of the Fawcett Society. Far from opposing the Bill, the Fawcett Society's complaint was that they believe it does not go far enough and that it should be implemented earlier."

This was removed as vandalism, when, if anything it should have been removed as POV.

I still think it would be not neutral to omit any criticism whatsoever. Therefore I would like to gather consensus on what we should say about criticism of the Fawcett Society. There's plenty of it about. Perhaps I could mention the two above facts without reference to fakecharities.org? Or see http://timworstall.com/2009/10/30/and-now-the-fawcett-society-is-simply-flat-out-lying/ They've been criticised for using mean statistics rather than medians, a practice condemned in this context by the head of the UK Statistics Authority: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8096761.stm

cagliost (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC ref is fine. The other two refs are blogs which is problematic per WP:RS. One of them appears to be the personal blog of Tim Worstall and while a notable blogger his opinion should only be used when it is sources as his opinion and only if he is a notable expert on the topic neither of which are the case here. The other one is in The Spectator so it may be okay if it has the full editorial control of the magazine, it's not clear to me this is the case. In any case, if there is "plenty of it about" it should be easy to find high quality references that would be beyond dispute. Finally the phrase "apples and oranges" does not occur in any of the references so it appears to be WP:OR. Sorry I WP:AGF that the BBC ref actually mentioned what it was being used to cite. In fact it doesn't mention the Fawcett society at all. There's no reference therefore that the Fawcett society has this practice and there's also no reference that they've been criticised for it. The fact that someone else has been criticised for it has little bearing on this article per WP:Syn (a subsection of WP:OR). Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fawcett Society. 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/20090107140449/http://www.thebusiness.co.uk/trading-floor/487086/jackie-ashleys-answer.thtml to http://www.thebusiness.co.uk/trading-floor/487086/jackie-ashleys-answer.thtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fawcett Society. 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/20140119225314/http://fawcettsociety.org.uk:80/trustees/ to http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/trustees/

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) 06:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Advice requested on balanced content
The t-shirt controversy section in this article seems unbalanced to me - does anyone else agree, or can someone point out the relevant guidelines on the topic?

Reading between the lines, it seems that the Society made a snafu in its choice of T-shirt supplier, a snafu rooted in incompetence rather than bad faith. This one-off episode probably does deserve a mention, but the question is: does this single episode deserve to take up circa 20% of the entire page of an organisation with a 180 year history? I'd say no, but what is the consensus here and, more importantly, which editorial guidelines apply here? There are so many!