This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fawcett Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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.

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) 06:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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!