Talk:National Friendly

While checking references, I noticed much of this article's content is sourced from National Friendly promotional material (e.g. this video). That said, this organization appears to be notable in British healthcare history, appearing in several scholarly sources and museum collection summaries so removal of the article isn't appropriate. Baltakatei 21:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have substantially expanded the history using the 1868-1968 company history. In 1968 the National Deposit claimed to be the largest friendly society.

In adding the new material, it has thrown up a couple of source erors - I hope someone is able to sort that out. Bebington (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed references (Cordery 2003; British Medical Journal 1913; Beveridge 2015 (1948) ) and replaced them a single primary source (Roper 1968, published by the National Friendly itself) that I would argue is promotional in nature. See WP:PRIMARYCARE. Specifically, please read the "An article about a business" example; a primary source can be used to form statements establishing historic facts but a "[primary source] is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies".

For example, the statement "Whether or not it was co-incidental, Portal's move marked a radical change in the scale of the Society. He proposed a move into other counties and to facilitate that, a new organisational structure was established and the name changed to the ambitious National Deposit Friendly Society" uses puffery such as "radical change" and "ambitious". See MOS:PUFFERY. Did you use puffery because you are copying primary source text directly into the article?

Given these issues, the removed references should be restored and the content referencing only National Friendly promotional material should be removed. Baltakatei 08:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)