Wikipedia

Talk:Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

RSPB reserve list (List of RSPB reserves)

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reviewing this section and doing some work on correcting areas and wikilinks I began to feel that this list - in its current format - may not serve Wikipedia or its readers well. For those requiring an alphabetical list of reserves there are the categories Category:Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserves (tho oddly not one for Northern Ireland?). The fact that the list is in alphabetical order mitigates against a Table of contents which might well be useful.

All in all I feel that this list could be re-ordered to reflect region or county or, possibly better, to become "by habitat type". Anyone got any views? I'll cross post this to the organisation talk page too on the off chance someone is watching that. Regards --Herby talk to me 10:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have removed this on the basis that it is commercial and that it is accessible from the RSPB website anyway. It would be good if the article were improved rather than links being placed really. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I understand your viewpoint Herby, I have to disagree. The RSPB Shop link is valid - I would argue it is not commercial as all profits are used for conservation purposes. If I were to write a paragraph about how good quality the products were etc you would be justified in removing it. As it stands, it is merely a link to a legitimate part of the RSPB. I would also like to point out that on the Marks and Spencer page there is a link to their shop site and on the B&Q page etc. These are not removed on the basis of them being commercial. I have reinstated the link. Thanks John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbarleycorn (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that this is your only contribution to Wiki. Can you improve the page about the RSPB - a charity, not a retailer - as well as adding a link? Also - realising you are new - please sign your posts on talk pages and familiarise yourself with Wiki policies before saying what can and can't be included. As an encyclopedia what Wiki requires is content not links. --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have been contributing to Wiki on and off since 2003 (not logged in though) and have instigated a couple of articles which have since bloomed. I nevertheless bow down to your superior knowledge of how it all works. I will, as you suggest look to improve this page about the RSPB and it's work. Do you have any further suggestions? --Johnbarleycorn

State of Nature Report

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article contained the following, which is actually not about the RSPB - the subject of the article - at all. This is basically WP:COATRACK, someone considering it currently important in 2013(WP:NOTNEWS), perhaps with a dash of WP:COI, I don't know. The fact that it belongs to 26 organisations might be a clue to its wrong placement here. It might find a home in some conservation article, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

State of Nature Report;

In 2013 the RSPB and a collaborative partnership of 25 UK conservation and research organisations published the first United Kingdom State of Nature Report, which generally found a profound decline in native wildlife species in recent years: "The report reveals that 60 per cent of the species studied have declined over recent decades. More than one in ten of all the species assessed are under threat of disappearing from our shores altogether."[1]

The report encompasses the islands of the UK and overseas territories, and provides a number of possible reasons for the cited declines, including for climate change, intensive farming methods, and habitat degradation. It is hoped that the report will increase public awareness and promote conservation measures and government policy locally and nationally.[2]

I just came here to point out that 'State of Nature report' redirects here, and there is a header note on the State of nature page which also redirects here but in it's current form the phrase State of nature does not appear anywhere in the article. Either a section needs to be added or the redirect needs to be removed. Alternatively if the report itself is notable enough (which seems likely given the 2016 version involved 53 different organisations and DEFRA have stated it will inform UK government policy) it should have it's own article and the redirect should point there. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit a redirect myself so if someone else can fix it I'd appreciate it. 108.171.128.169 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "RSBP State of Nature Report". Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  2. ^ "BBC Nature Article: How to help wildlife". Retrieved 10 August 2013.

"False Advertising" section

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

There seems to be something of an edit-war going on about this section. Curiously, the section is correctly cited, but that isn't stopping an IP editor from repeatedly removing it. Here is the disputed text:

False advertising
In 2015, the RSPB was forced to withdraw claims that it "was spending 90 per cent of its income on conservation" by the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which said that the true figure was closer to 26%.[1]

The cited article is at this URL, and it includes the text:

"He [Ian Botham] says the Advertising Standards Authority has written to his campaign pointing out it has forced the RSPB to withdraw 'misleading' advertising claims, including a statement that 90 per cent of its £128 million income 'goes directly to conservation work'. (24 May 2015)

There is an earlier article at Botham hits RSPB 'dictators' for six which makes the similar claim that "Following a complaint to the Charity Commission, the RSPB has been ordered to stop claiming that 90 per cent of its £128 million income ‘goes directly to conservation work’. (1 Nov 2014)

The ASA website has the following entry on what seems to be the case mentioned. It is the only informally resolved item on the RSPB:

Informally Resolved Cases (1)
After consideration by the ASA of complaints received, the following companies and organisations agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation:
Advertiser --- Date --- Number of Complaints --- Media --- Sector
RSPB --- 27 May 2015 ------ 1 ------ Internet (on own site) --- Non-commercial

That's the complete entry on the ASA website and there are no links to any further details.

I'd say that "it has forced the RSPB to withdraw" is perhaps a little strong, given it was an informal agreement to withdraw a claim; clearly, the RSPB would not have withdrawn if it had thought it would win if the ruling had become formal instead, i.e. if its advertisement had been in its own view correct and very likely to be upheld. However, the general drift of the statement seems to be justified by both the Daily Mail article and the ASA website. Since the matter is relevant to the article and of definite interest, the section seems appropriate, and without evidence that seriously undermines the claim, I think it should stay in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Attempts to edit-war this item out of the article are continuing. In case anybody else needs it, here is what we can say to IPs or other editors who attempt this:
"Hi, and thank you for your attempt to improve Wikipedia. However, this consisted of the deletion of a cited fact (something stated in a reliable, independent source) with the assertion that it had subsequently been "disproved". If indeed the case has been disproven, then there must be written evidence of that event which you can produce, and we will accept it if it is reliable. If not, you must not attempt to force (edit-war) your opinion, however strongly held, into the article: your opinion is worth no more than anybody else's, and it cannot be verified without actual evidence. Thank you for your understanding." Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've found the Charity Commission's email to the RSPB which covers the issues raised in the Daily Mail articles, stating "Commission contacted charity about need to clarify their web statement. This was changed [by the RSPB] within 2 days to make it clear that 90% of net (their emphasis) income is used for conservation. This has now been further improved to give very clear information about income and expenditure. It is for the charity to decide how much to spend on fundraisers and TV adverts. The charity funds wide range of activities to promote conservation, not just confined to bird reserves. Given the positive response by the charity, there are no further grounds for regulatory concern identified here." This appears to mean that the original claim as understood by the Daily Mail, namely that 90% of gross income was spent on conservation, was indeed false, and was swiftly retracted by the RSPB. It is not stated what the income is net of, but if it includes operating and advertising expenses (for instance), which are a large part of its overall expenditure, then the gross percentage spent on conservation may indeed be 26%, as the newspaper and Ian Botham asserted, and the original advertising had indeed been potentially misleading. We should consider how to update the section to reflect the Charity Commission's action, the RSPB's change (adding "net", and the Charity Commission's response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Knowsley, Jo (24 May 2015). "I'll sue RSPB for libel after charity's incompetence and misleading ads, says former cricketer Sir Ian Botham". Daily Mail.
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Society_for_the_Protection_of_Birds&oldid=1195183650"