This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal National Institute of Blind People article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Royal National Institute of Blind People be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in London may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a logo be
included in this article to
improve its quality. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hello.
I made some significant changes to the RNIB's entry the other day that were then changed back. I'm not sure why!
I work as the senior web editor for RNIB, and thought it would be useful to improve RNIB's stub entry. I've used our current website, annual review and other information (all of it in the public domain) to present an up to date, accurate and useful entry for the organisation.
I took out reference to Galloway Society for the Blind, as it seemed unfair to promote one local society over another. If that's bothered someone, please let me know and we can discuss it.
If you'd like to discuss any other aspects of the content please do.
I hope whoever changed the new content back will understand that, as someone who works for RNIB, I want the charity to be presented as completely and professionally as possible.
Many thanks,
Verity
Shiny1 ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal National Institute of Blind People article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Royal National Institute of Blind People be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in London may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a logo be
included in this article to
improve its quality. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hello.
I made some significant changes to the RNIB's entry the other day that were then changed back. I'm not sure why!
I work as the senior web editor for RNIB, and thought it would be useful to improve RNIB's stub entry. I've used our current website, annual review and other information (all of it in the public domain) to present an up to date, accurate and useful entry for the organisation.
I took out reference to Galloway Society for the Blind, as it seemed unfair to promote one local society over another. If that's bothered someone, please let me know and we can discuss it.
If you'd like to discuss any other aspects of the content please do.
I hope whoever changed the new content back will understand that, as someone who works for RNIB, I want the charity to be presented as completely and professionally as possible.
Many thanks,
Verity
Shiny1 ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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)