Talk:Chartered Institute of Fundraising
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. Wikipedians in London may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Rename page edit
THe Institute of Fundraising received a Royal Charter from the Privy Council on 1 April 2020 and is now the Chartered Institute of Fundraising. I suggest therefore, that the page be renamed. ~Gibcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by GibCat (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Outdoor Code and FRSB edit
Please see the link to the article. This was the original link. It clearly states "forced". The word forced appear in the magazine and the original on line report.
- As I say in my edit summary, "forced" seems to have been dropped by the source. Yes, you can see that the url still says "forced" but the headline now reads "acts" and the word "prompted" is used in the text. This means that ThirdSector.org probably felt the original language was too strong and toned it down. Wikipedia follows the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The Third Sector published in their magazine yesterday with the word forced and the original source also stated this. As this is two sources against the one I suggest it it changed back to forced. Perhaps instead of changing that which has a source more attention could be given to other aspects of this page where no source is given!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.207.161 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to give some of our attention to aspects that may be contentious.
- You refer to other, unsourced facts - are there any here that you think may be incorrect? Trafford09 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. So can I request that "forced" is accepted and the page is edited. As to incorrect facts without a citation nothing should be accepted. I believe where a citation is still needed these "facts" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.207.161 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- You refer to "incorrect facts without a citation". Which facts are disputed, please? I think uncontentious content is allowed without a citation. Also, please would you mind answering my question I left for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.159.207.161#IoF_wording. (your own talk page). Thanks. Trafford09 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)