2192:
2171:
1284:). For this reason I am inclined to agree although the NSPCC was as involved on paper with the Orkneys as with Rochdale, including both unbalances the article too much in favour of one issue, so as the link to the Rochdale ones has more recent press coverage and is easier to substantiate I think sticking to that part is reasonable. However, I would agree that the link you put in probably ought to stay because it is directly relevant to the article content. SO I support the middle ground now represented. --
343:
322:
709:
one side that can be sourced then it may seem like its getting undue weight but it the fact that it is the only view that is sourced means it isnt. If you can find second party articles that praise the NSPCC then they would help the article but as i pointed out above, its lack of measurable success (which i'm sure is true about all pressure groups) is one of the frequent criticisms. It has indeniably come under alot of criticism in the media as the sources point out. --
432:
411:
442:
967:
c) we have to remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an advertisement. The info needs to be factual and relevent in the context of the history of the organisation. A campaign is not necessarily important enough to be included simply on the basis of it being the most recent and it having a sizeable paragraph dedicated to it may unbalance the article. A list of or a section dedicated to significant campaigns might be a better way to go. --
2200:
1173:
233:
202:
562:
children at all and it's only function is to campaign for gays, separate children from their fathers, passively imitate an authority and attract more money to promote it's anti-father, homosexuality encouraging agenda - but I doubt it somehow. Someone who can be bothered should go and find what the NSPCC actually does for children since after reading this article I have no clue.
1073:
have been even more controversial than the NSPCC, and to the best of my knowledge have never publicly apologised for their role in the Orkney satanic panic scandal (they changed their name a while later instead). Childline
Scotland is now run by Children First, so I don't think there would be any problem with stating that the NSPCC covers England, Wales and N. Ireland.
2196:
730:
such as 177 local services being run or x helplines are run, or x cases were investigated last year. It gets trickier for subjective stuff like "this part of legislation was put in place because of the NSPCC" which there seems to be a lot of on the NSPCC site! Can we lose the self-published sources tag, or do you still think there is an issue?
1249:
could get details under the freedom of information act. Of course the ASA is an advertisers body which never upholds the complaints and rarely do against anyone (although one ad targeted at children was moved to after the watershed) but the number of complaints is rather distinctive for a UK charity. --
744:*Also*, having taken a look at the latest accounts, around 50% of expenditure is on projects (£62million - inc helplines)compared to around 25% on influencing and public education - the article/discussion is perhaps too focused on the pressure group side of things, which is a small part of NSPCC work.
966:
The problem with the paragraph was a) much of it didnt seem to be sourced and read like a commentary, for instance "The NSPCC can never hope to end cruelty to children by itself" is an uncited opinion and b) press releases as sources are self published, not independant and are usually promotional and
645:
Firstly it isnt a criticism section, it is about controversial campaigning which has been much documented and reported in the media. It is fully sourced and there is no non-neutral opinion that are expressed as facts. It fairly represents the amount of controversy. It is not primarly bases on article
547:
It's pointless to speculate on why the spending has gone up. Perhaps the NSPCC is doing more work which was previously being done by other agencies. Perhaps it was underpaying its staff before. Perhaps it always knew of more work that should have been done but was in no position to do it. Perhaps the
520:
As you can see below, this article gets people riled up and not thinking straight. That's why it has no introduction, and why there is no possibility of fixing the situation. Some lunatic with a grudge will just come along and remove stuff they don't like. You might as well delete articles like this,
1470:
Not disliked enough for them to receive £147.2 million last year, most of it from monthly donations from individuals. I think every large charity has its critics, and the NSPCC is very large and very criticised. But if we added "controversial" to the top of this article, we'd need to consider adding
1248:
But the
Advertising Standards website lists a whole raft of complaints received about NSPCC mailing and TV adverts (typically by several hundred people each time), and there are a couple on the Ofcom site. Most complaints I guess go to the charities commission which doesn't publish complaints but we
1087:
I really think the explanation that the NSPCC does not operate in
Scotland should be put into the introduction. I put in something along the lines of "The NSPCC operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands", but it was removed because apparently 'the UK implies this'. I would
850:
not self published material, reporting in the media etc and not self published and have to be fact checked that is why they are considered of better quality. Promotional material, however, is known for being exaggerated. The microsoft article is largely based in second party sources not SPS, the few
729:
Having taken a look through the history of this article I can see why huge amounts of effectively PR copy have had to be removed. I disagree on your point about self-published material being inaccurate though - the NSPCC website and reports are perfectly valid sources to quote objective information
708:
We can use common sense to a certain extent but it's not really appropriate to include material of an overly promotional nature because it's not known for it's accuracy. Concerning the 'Satanic abuse scandal', i haven't heard of the charity ever addressing this or giving a response. If there is only
561:
This article his highly critical of the NSPCC in that it details a catalogue of failures but does not deem to mention any statistics about successes or positive actions the NSPCC has taken. I don't even know what good work the NSPCC does after reading this article, perhaps it really does not protect
1108:
NSPCC is registered in scotland as charity number SC037717 and very much exists as a charity in scotland the only thing it doesnt do is operate community services there which is only a small part of the organisation. It operates as a UK charity and it's adequate enough to put that. There is nothing
1072:
15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I would agree that this ought to be made clear, and I think the current version of the article does this tolerably early on: however I do think it worth mentioning that
Scottish donors may have other reasons for favouring the NSPCC over Children 1st/ RSSPCC. The RSSPCC
902:
Anything that isn't suspect should be fine but we have to be careful with some of the claims that aren't common sense. "NSPCC lobbies the government on issues" is far more open to question to the fact that microsoft was founded by bill gates. As far as I am concerned it isn't contentious but anyone
618:
I stumbled across this article today and agree that it seems a little 'unbalanced'. I've added a little about what they actually do, based on my knowledge and their website, but the criticism section seems very large and has lots of weasel words scattered in it. I'm also a little concerned by how
1346:
seem to recall a great deal of NSPCC advertising from around 2004-5 onwards, which may have a lot to do with their ability to survive such difficulties while
Childline, which dedicated its resources to getting on with the job rather than publicity, was forced into a merger to safeguard its future.
948:
I read the recent edit where a press-release-style paragraph mentioning appeals for money was added, before it was reverted with the explanation "inappropriate sps". I don't object to this reversion: I was about to query the previous edit myself and suggest at least a rewrite from a more objective
801:
can be used with info that is not contentious. The part about the legislation really highlights the problems with measuring the success of pressure groups. It's nearly impossible to say how much, if indeed any, effect the group's actions had on that event. Extending the history section may improve
796:
Whether you agree with it or not it is wikipedia policy that self published sources are only acceptable it certain circumstances and they must be carefuly used. We have no guarantee that the info on their site (a site primarily design for promotion) is accurate and it certainly cannot be objective
542:
a pattern of growth that indicates either that the NCPCC is becoming increasingly effective at discovering cruelty to children, or that levels of cruelty are themselves on the increase (which the NSPCC has evidently been powerless to prevent), or simply that people have become a lot more generous,
1345:
Since the merger was brought about by
Childline's funding crisis which was attributed partly to the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004) and the relief efforts which followed attracting a great deal of charitable donations which might otherwise have gone elsewhere, I assume that 2006 must be correct. I also
875:
Agreed, we can't use NSPCC's website as a source for them "influencing laws and policies". We CAN use it to say, "NSPCC lobbies the government on issues....with the intention of raising awareness of child protection issues." Surely this is no more contentious than Bill Gates founded microsoft?
822:
I agree with the policy, just not your interpretation of it. C'mon now, are you really suggesting that despite having to meet
Charity Commision regulations and being audited by Deloitte and Touche, you don't believe NSPCC's reporting? Are there any sources that dispute it? We have no guarantee
1455:
Happy to leave the additional word out then but you clearly don't inhabit the same planet or read the same media as me. I would say the NSPCC was probably the most disliked and most controversial charity in the UK although neither is saying much, perhaps. They certainly seem to attract far more
1440:
No I don't think so. I'd disagree that the media generally views the NSPCC as a controversial organisation. The NSPCC is a very popular charity, with laudable aims to help children and end child abuse; therefore a few controversial episodes documented in the article don't neccessarily make it a
1296:
For reference on undue weight "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of
1011:
Looking at the accounts, the 79% figure is claimed as a percentage of the total spent (£106.9 million) rather than the total raised (£112 million), the difference being transferred to reserves. So their claim is accurate, but so is this article - it's just a different way of expressing things.
982:
Yes. Most charities will take restricted donations which are dedicated to funding particular projects and the same report referred to in the text which said the Full Stop campaign was £250m of publicity seeking without helping a single child actually includes a donation restricted to childline
1222:
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as
1388:"The first child cruelty case in Britain was brought by the RSPCA, which was founded in 1824. The court charge list in the trial described the affected child as "a small animal" because at the time there were no laws in Britain to protect children from mistreatment. The case was successful."
1405:]. Bergh's UK counterpart, John Collam, undertook similar cooperation with child advocates and in 1887 the SPCA was credited by the founder of NSPCC as follows: 'Your Society, the RSPCA, has given birth to a kindred institution whose object is the protection of defenceless children.'
1048:
Could/should it be mentioned nearer the top of the article that it does not really cover
Scotland? There have been many cases where they have been given/inherited large donations from Scottish doners who may have not realized that there was a separate charity covering Scotland
254:
1939:
The history section claims "On 1 January 1877, the Child's
Guardian, the official magazine of the Society was launched." with a source that can't easily be verified. This is several years before the first society was set up. Can anyone help clarify the timeline on this?
682:
needs a citation - that the NSPCC lobbies the government, that it creates campaigns, or the intention behind the campaigns? Surely only the NSPCC is able to say what the intention of its campaigns are? Is there anything in the article currently which falls foul of
983:
amongst their recommendations (so presumably its possible). That part of the report did not seem to get as much media attention so is less notable on our rules. But we ought to dig up some statement from NSPCC that they will take such a donation I guess. --
1264:
I have added this link since the final section of the article deals with the problem. I notice that the last revert alleged that this link was POV. How can that be if it is already in the article? Please state your reasons for POV or do not revert again.
1154:
There seem to be quite a few coalitions (ECPATS, End Child
Poverty etc.) in which the NSPCC are participating. Personally I don't think we should link to all these from this page: the notable ones should have their own page. Anyone disagree?
1131:
Yep childline operates in Scotland and the infamous TV adverts run there as well. These represent more than 50% of the NSPCC these days AFAICT and lack of one other type of program in one region doesn't justify the long intro on geography.
2216:
548:
growth of the Internet has created a need for more work to combat online paedophiles. Perhaps... any number of other reasons. Let's just report the facts, that income and spending have risen, and leave the original research out. --
2131:
Each acronym needs to be evaluated individually. In this case, there is a lack of evidence that most reliable sources start with the acronym and not the full name, which would indicate that the acronym was more recognizable.
1367:
for example. It wasn't just the tsunami they tried to tag on to crises everywhere else by claiming it was causing them suffering. NSPCC was growing rapidly over the period (as were many other children's charities of course).
1088:
not assume that "the UK" implied the Channel Islands, and I would assume it included Scotland - I don't understand this argument. As the person above me has said, Childline in Scotland is also organised by Children 1st.
2325:. I'm generally minded to give more weight to news sources than Google Scholar hits in this type of discussion because they are more likely to be read by the general public, and are therefore what drives common names.
589:
That seems to be the major concern that the mass media have been so critical of. The fact that there is no really way to measure the success of a pressure group. The lead gives a basic outline. This isn't a NPOV issue
2284:. Yes, the abbreviation is very well-known, but I'm never a fan of using abbreviations unless they're used pretty much exclusively, and there are very few examples of that (the BBC being one of them). We don't use
845:
why the SPS policy exists. Self published advertising isn't a reliable source. The policy is clear that self-published are only admissable if they are not contentious and self serving. Knowledge (XXG) is based on
646:
in "Spiked" (which is a verifiable publication, so it wouldnt matter if it was). Sources include the BBC and the Guardian Newspaper. The article published in spiked is the opinion of notable sociology professor
823:
that the info on *any* site is accurate, and nothing I have mentioned or quoted is contentious. (Besides, pretty much ALL websites are primarily for promotion) It's just the same as citing microsoft.com on
1363:
FWIW, Childline declared funding crises repeatedly (led by Ms Rantzen) as a means to try to get headlines and fundraise, almost since it was founded you can find dozens on google. By its 5th year in 2002
164:
2188:
619:
much of it is based on articles in "Spiked" but that's because I'm not familiar with this source! It doesn't strike me as 'mass media' though, which leaves the Guardian as the main mass media critic.
1723:
2212:
526:
1219:
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
2008:
1833:
1685:
1537:
851:
instance where SPS are used is for non-contentious facts. The fact that Bill Gates founded microsoft is hardly contentious or self serving but to repeat the NSPCCs claims that they have
1395:
a leader of the animal humane movement in the United States and founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), was approached to help an abused child.
1280:
I saw both edits and thought about them. I was wondering about a partial revert on your first edit. I do not think there is a POV issue but there probably is an undue weight issue (see
2204:
677:"The NSPCC lobbies the government on issues relating to child welfare, and create campaigns for the general public, with the intention of raising awareness of child protection issues."
1427:
Anyone agree that given the balance of the article (which seems to reflect a media balance about the NSPCC) the word "controversial" should be added to the first sentence? --
498:
1988:
1881:
1877:
1863:
1773:
1769:
1755:
1625:
1621:
1607:
304:
1724:
https://web.archive.org/20130509064622/http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/the-work-we-do/services-for-children/direct-services-for-children-and-families_wda72290.html
694:
weight to one side of the argument without documenting NSPCC's responses. The article reads as though NSPCC is universally vilified, a point made by 81.109.12.253
2387:
488:
650:
and is clearly cited as such. The reason alot of the info was removed was that it was largely self published by the charity itself and promotional in nature. (see
393:
1733:
1727:
2362:
294:
158:
90:
2177:
1109:
in the article yet that mentions links with scotland, this needs to go in the activities section before it can even be consider for a summmary in the lead. --
2392:
2382:
2377:
383:
464:
2367:
270:
2357:
1091:
There are two options - you could say (except Scotland), but I think this is a bit negative, so I think including the places it *does* operate is better
1200:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
1197:
1565:
2372:
1224:
1216:
1212:
1189:
359:
1713:
96:
455:
416:
1228:
261:
238:
2020:
1318:
41:
350:
327:
2185:
1972:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
569:
2183:
2118:
110:
1859:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1001:
In its accounts, NSPCC claims that it gives away 79% of its income, but doing the sums based on their figures it comes to only 75%.
2208:
115:
31:
949:
viewpoint, but it did raise a question which I think ought to be addressed. Can the public still donate to Childline separately?
1030:
Neither figure is in the article and I cannot believe they say "gives away": what do they say? Proportion used on "projects"? --
85:
1734:
https://web.archive.org/20060520093811/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060302/debtext/60302-18.htm
1728:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/the-work-we-do/services-for-children/direct-services-for-children-and-families_wda72290.html
17:
2175:
1575:
213:
876:
Otherwise we're entering into conspiracy theories, about what the NSPCC *really* does with its money and what its agenda is.
1849:
1317:
The History section says that Childline merged into the NSPCC in 2006, the Activities section says 1996. Which is correct? -
779:
76:
1737:
2344:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1398:
The SPCA investigated the matter and brought the case before the court where it was contended successfully that the child
1351:
1078:
954:
55:
2137:
2081:
1924:
2073:
1963:
2255:
per DankJae. Plus, I'd wager basically all Brits know the organization by the acronym rather than the full name (cf.
2076:. My own searches indicate that on Google Scholar the full title is used on first mention at least 50% of the time. (
1566:
https://web.archive.org/20070820204159/http://www.nspcc.org.uk:80/WhatWeDo/AboutTheNSPCC/aboutthenspcc_wda36522.html
1056:
I was tempted to replace "UK charity" with "is a charity in England and Wales and Northern Ireland" (similar to the
179:
1585:
146:
120:
1717:
1714:
https://web.archive.org/20090106043217/http://nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediaresources/faqs_wda33299.html
1880:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1772:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1624:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2330:
2058:
1347:
1074:
950:
890:
Yep, I think it is fair to accept their statement of their aims (which is already elsewhere in the article). --
2024:
1973:
1403:
1322:
219:
201:
1569:
2122:
1915:
1841:
1480:
1446:
1017:
573:
553:
2322:
2231:
2163:
2016:
1068:
which does cover the whole UK is part of Nspcc now - so deleting "UK charity" may no longer be appropriate
565:
2224:
2222:
2040:
1945:
1837:
2326:
1096:
1069:
66:
1899:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1887:
1811:
1791:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1779:
1663:
1643:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1631:
1491:
I agree that there has been much criticism in the media but it's not really a word to throw around. see
1002:
463:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
447:
358:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
269:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1941:
1840:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1185:
140:
81:
2197:
59,100 news results with the acronym and attempted exclusion of the full title (not sure if it worked)
2305:
1500:
1410:
1270:
1114:
972:
914:
866:
813:
769:
720:
665:
601:
522:
2098:
1208:
1184:
is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
1180:
1092:
684:
651:
2054:
1232:
881:
832:
785:
749:
735:
699:
624:
172:
1976:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1396:
1281:
841:
Alot of the material they publish is done so with the intention of promoting the charity, this is
798:
136:
1997:
1476:
1442:
1013:
549:
1884:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1776:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1628:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
691:
1900:
1792:
1644:
2272:
2241:
2036:
1695:
1547:
1399:
342:
321:
62:
2218:
186:
2133:
2077:
1807:
1659:
431:
410:
2267:), not least because this has been how they've been branding themselves for a while now. —
2227:
2220:
2167:
1907:
1799:
1651:
1576:
https://web.archive.org/20090530082253/http://www.childabusecommission.com:80/rpt/05-01.php
1492:
1061:
2301:
2179:
1703:
1555:
1513:
1460:
1431:
1406:
1372:
1336:
1301:
1288:
1266:
1253:
1159:
1136:
1034:
987:
911:
894:
863:
810:
766:
717:
662:
598:
2215:. While I haven't checked every academic publication, these seem to only use the acronym
1850:
http://webarchive.proni.gov.uk/20131024181426/http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
1201:
1738:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060302/debtext/60302-18.htm
1866:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1758:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1610:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
877:
828:
781:
745:
731:
695:
620:
460:
1906:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1873:
1798:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1765:
1650:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1617:
1297:
detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--
1172:
2351:
1993:
1475:
too (for its occasional and highly criticised PR campaigns), and that would be daft.
266:
1579:
2268:
2236:
647:
152:
2181:
1365:
2142:
2102:
2086:
1392:
355:
253:
232:
1586:
https://web.archive.org/20130506161726/http://awards.prca.org.uk:80/2012winners
2318:
2226:
so the full title isn't automatically preferred in academia. So seems to meet
2114:
1872:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1853:
1764:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1718:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/mediacentre/mediaresources/faqs_wda33299.html
1616:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1510:
1457:
1428:
1369:
1333:
1298:
1285:
1250:
1156:
1133:
1031:
984:
891:
848:
third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
437:
690:
The point I was making about Spiked was that it seems like the article gives
1472:
1065:
824:
1570:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/aboutthenspcc/aboutthenspcc_wda36522.html
853:
influenced laws and policies to promote children's rights and their safety
2213:
18,900 acronym scholar articles when attempting to exclude the full name
1700:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
1589:
1552:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
2300:, etc, all of which are probably better-known than the full names. --
997:
How much of its income does the NSPCC use vs how much it says it uses
855:
is contentious and self serving, that's what the policy is about. --
654:). It would have to be from second party sources to be acceptable. --
2260:
2110:
2106:
2012:
1708:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1560:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1057:
35:
1196:
Knowledge (XXG) article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
1050:
802:
the article. It seems quite brief for a 120+ year old charity. --
2321:
was, but my own searching leads me to believe that NSPCC is the
2264:
2174:
seems to show multiple sources only using the acronym, such as
2097:
No, it only applies to this article title that is likely to be
18:
Talk:National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2256:
2191:, Ngrams can't apply as the full title is too long. There are
195:
26:
1743:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1595:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1171:
2334:
2309:
2276:
2247:
2148:
2126:
2092:
2062:
2001:
1949:
1929:
1819:
1671:
1516:
1504:
1484:
1463:
1450:
1434:
1414:
1375:
1355:
1339:
1326:
1304:
1291:
1274:
1235:
1162:
1139:
1118:
1100:
1082:
1060:
article where a similar situation exists with the seperate
1037:
1020:
1005:
990:
958:
918:
903:
could ask for proof that they actually do what they say. --
897:
885:
870:
836:
817:
789:
773:
753:
739:
724:
703:
669:
628:
605:
577:
556:
530:
2009:
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
1844:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1834:
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
1686:
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
1538:
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
516:
Why bother tagging an article that is impossible to fix?
459:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
2189:
GT shows the full name is understandably never searched
2072:
little evidence that the proposed title would increase
1689:
1684:
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
1541:
1536:
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
171:
2201:
61,600 news results when not excluding the full title
354:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
265:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1876:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1768:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1620:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1227:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
185:
2105:. Unlike other article titles with acronyms (e.g.
1580:http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/05-01.php
2317:per DankJae. It's not quite as cut and dried as
44:for general discussion of the article's subject.
587:I don't even know what good work the NSPCC does
1862:This message was posted before February 2018.
1754:This message was posted before February 2018.
1606:This message was posted before February 2018.
1441:"controversial" organisation as such overall.
687:? - I can't see why it's been tagged as such.
8:
2234:. The full title should remain in the lead.
1217:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use rationale guideline
1854:http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
1493:Knowledge (XXG):WTA#Controversy and scandal
199:
1962:The following is a closed discussion of a
1832:I have just modified one external link on
1150:Links to organisations they are members of
797:seen as they are publishing it. As i said
543:and the money has to be given away somehow
473:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom
405:
316:
227:
2115:Talk:RSPCA#Requested move 28 October 2023
1244:Not sure if they should go in the article
535:== Neutral Point Of View ==opportunities
279:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Organizations
1260:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations
1064:covering Scotland), however I see that
407:
368:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Social Work
318:
229:
2388:Low-importance United Kingdom articles
1168:Fair use rationale for Image:NSPCC.jpg
2193:4,120 news results for the full title
1590:http://awards.prca.org.uk/2012winners
7:
2363:Low-importance organization articles
2187:with many stating just "the NSPCC".
1981:The result of the move request was:
453:This article is within the scope of
348:This article is within the scope of
259:This article is within the scope of
2393:WikiProject United Kingdom articles
2383:Start-Class United Kingdom articles
2378:Low-importance Social work articles
476:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom
218:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
2368:WikiProject Organizations articles
282:Template:WikiProject Organizations
25:
2358:Start-Class organization articles
2205:8,990 full title scholar articles
1836:. Please take a moment to review
1688:. Please take a moment to review
1540:. Please take a moment to review
61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2373:Start-Class Social work articles
2340:The discussion above is closed.
1215:. Using one of the templates at
778:NSPCC Report and Accounts 2007.
440:
430:
409:
371:Template:WikiProject Social Work
341:
320:
252:
231:
200:
56:Click here to start a new topic.
2209:23,900 acronym scholar articles
2027:) 08:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1456:complaints than anyone else. --
758:What is the source for this? --
493:This article has been rated as
388:This article has been rated as
299:This article has been rated as
1989:closed by non-admin page mover
1955:Requested move 8 December 2023
1415:14:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
1229:Media copyright questions page
991:07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
959:01:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
2335:10:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2310:11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
2277:16:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2248:16:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
2109:), as they moved this title "
2063:08:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
2045:12:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
1950:15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1930:19:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
1517:15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
1505:13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
1485:08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
1464:22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
1451:21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
1435:11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
1376:15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1356:04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1340:13:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1327:13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1198:boilerplate fair use template
1140:22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
1119:20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
1101:09:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
1083:04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1021:11:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
1006:10:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
557:09:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
467:and see a list of open tasks.
362:and see a list of open tasks.
273:and see a list of open tasks.
53:Put new text under old text.
2149:09:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2127:04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
2093:10:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1672:02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1225:criteria for speedy deletion
1038:21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
538:I've removed the following:
531:06:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
2002:06:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
1985:. Rough consensus to move.
1820:11:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
1391:This is mawkish mythology.
674:I'm not sure which part of
2409:
2019:and British news sources.
1935:Chronology of early events
1893:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1829:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1785:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1706:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
1681:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1637:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1558:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
1533:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1209:the image description page
919:20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
898:19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
886:19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
499:project's importance scale
456:WikiProject United Kingdom
394:project's importance scale
305:project's importance scale
1256:09:31, 29 November 2007.
1211:and edit it to include a
1163:11:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
871:17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
837:02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
818:21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
790:02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
774:21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
754:02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
740:02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
725:23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
704:16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
670:14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
629:00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
606:18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
578:09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
492:
425:
387:
336:
298:
262:WikiProject Organizations
247:
226:
91:Be welcoming to newcomers
2342:Please do not modify it.
1969:Please do not modify it.
1236:04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
1190:explanation or rationale
1825:External links modified
1677:External links modified
1529:External links modified
1305:20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1292:20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1275:20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
479:United Kingdom articles
351:WikiProject Social Work
1176:
827:, a Featured Article.
208:This article is rated
86:avoid personal attacks
1192:as to why its use in
1175:
521:they are worthless.--
448:United Kingdom portal
285:organization articles
212:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
111:Neutral point of view
2113:" per discussion at
1874:regular verification
1766:regular verification
1751:to let others know.
1692:. If necessary, add
1618:regular verification
1603:to let others know.
1544:. If necessary, add
374:Social work articles
116:No original research
1864:After February 2018
1756:After February 2018
1747:parameter below to
1608:After February 2018
1599:parameter below to
1509:Fair point Neon. --
1348:Contains Mild Peril
1075:Contains Mild Peril
951:Contains Mild Peril
2074:WP:Recognizability
1918:InternetArchiveBot
1869:InternetArchiveBot
1761:InternetArchiveBot
1613:InternetArchiveBot
1213:fair use rationale
1177:
1018:Talk to the driver
554:Talk to the driver
214:content assessment
97:dispute resolution
58:
2162:per nom, and per
2065:
2046:
1992:
1894:
1818:
1786:
1670:
1638:
1503:
1471:it to the top of
1400:Mary Ellen Wilson
1117:
975:
917:
869:
816:
772:
723:
668:
604:
580:
568:comment added by
513:
512:
509:
508:
505:
504:
404:
403:
400:
399:
315:
314:
311:
310:
194:
193:
77:Assume good faith
54:
16:(Redirected from
2400:
2244:
2239:
2145:
2089:
2047:
2028:
1994:feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦
1986:
1971:
1928:
1919:
1892:
1891:
1870:
1814:
1813:Talk to my owner
1809:
1784:
1783:
1762:
1707:
1699:
1666:
1665:Talk to my owner
1661:
1636:
1635:
1614:
1559:
1551:
1499:
1498:
1188:but there is no
1113:
1112:
971:
970:
910:
909:
906:
862:
861:
858:
809:
808:
805:
765:
764:
761:
716:
715:
712:
661:
660:
657:
597:
596:
593:
563:
481:
480:
477:
474:
471:
450:
445:
444:
443:
434:
427:
426:
421:
413:
406:
376:
375:
372:
369:
366:
345:
338:
337:
332:
324:
317:
287:
286:
283:
280:
277:
256:
249:
248:
243:
235:
228:
211:
205:
204:
196:
190:
189:
175:
106:Article policies
27:
21:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2242:
2237:
2143:
2087:
1967:
1957:
1937:
1922:
1917:
1885:
1878:have permission
1868:
1842:this simple FaQ
1827:
1817:
1812:
1777:
1770:have permission
1760:
1701:
1693:
1679:
1669:
1664:
1629:
1622:have permission
1612:
1553:
1545:
1531:
1496:
1425:
1386:
1315:
1262:
1246:
1181:Image:NSPCC.jpg
1170:
1152:
1110:
1046:
999:
968:
907:
904:
859:
856:
806:
803:
762:
759:
713:
710:
658:
655:
594:
591:
518:
478:
475:
472:
469:
468:
446:
441:
439:
419:
373:
370:
367:
364:
363:
330:
284:
281:
278:
275:
274:
241:
209:
132:
127:
126:
125:
102:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2406:
2404:
2396:
2395:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2350:
2349:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2327:YorkshireExpat
2312:
2279:
2250:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2055:Mattdaviesfsic
2021:87.225.105.108
2007:
2005:
1979:
1978:
1964:requested move
1958:
1956:
1953:
1936:
1933:
1912:
1911:
1904:
1857:
1856:
1848:Added archive
1826:
1823:
1810:
1804:
1803:
1796:
1741:
1740:
1732:Added archive
1730:
1722:Added archive
1720:
1712:Added archive
1678:
1675:
1662:
1656:
1655:
1648:
1593:
1592:
1584:Added archive
1582:
1574:Added archive
1572:
1564:Added archive
1530:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1424:
1423:First sentence
1421:
1419:
1402:was an animal.
1385:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1343:
1342:
1319:89.168.145.243
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1261:
1258:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1233:BetacommandBot
1169:
1166:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1070:172.188.60.230
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1024:
1023:
998:
995:
994:
993:
979:
978:
977:
976:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
794:
793:
792:
742:
688:
680:
679:
678:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
611:
610:
609:
608:
545:
544:
517:
514:
511:
510:
507:
506:
503:
502:
495:Low-importance
491:
485:
484:
482:
470:United Kingdom
465:the discussion
461:United Kingdom
452:
451:
435:
423:
422:
420:Low‑importance
417:United Kingdom
414:
402:
401:
398:
397:
390:Low-importance
386:
380:
379:
377:
360:the discussion
346:
334:
333:
331:Low‑importance
325:
313:
312:
309:
308:
301:Low-importance
297:
291:
290:
288:
271:the discussion
257:
245:
244:
242:Low‑importance
236:
224:
223:
217:
206:
192:
191:
129:
128:
124:
123:
118:
113:
104:
103:
101:
100:
93:
88:
79:
73:
71:
70:
59:
50:
49:
46:
45:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2405:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2355:
2353:
2343:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2323:WP:COMMONNAME
2320:
2316:
2313:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2251:
2249:
2246:
2245:
2240:
2233:
2232:WP:COMMONNAME
2229:
2225:
2223:
2221:
2219:
2217:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2203:). There are
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2184:
2182:
2180:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2164:WP:COMMONNAME
2161:
2158:
2157:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2139:
2135:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2044:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2033:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2017:WP:COMMONNAME
2014:
2010:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1990:
1984:
1977:
1975:
1970:
1965:
1960:
1959:
1954:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1934:
1932:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1920:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1889:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1865:
1860:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1830:
1824:
1822:
1821:
1815:
1808:
1801:
1797:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1781:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1757:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1697:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1676:
1674:
1673:
1667:
1660:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1633:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1609:
1604:
1602:
1598:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1549:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1528:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:Georgethe23rd
1474:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:Georgethe23rd
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1389:
1383:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1312:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1259:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1223:described on
1220:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:Please go to
1205:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1174:
1167:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1149:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1052:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1014:OpenToppedBus
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
996:
992:
989:
986:
981:
980:
974:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
920:
916:
913:
901:
900:
899:
896:
893:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
874:
873:
872:
868:
865:
854:
849:
844:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
819:
815:
812:
800:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
777:
776:
775:
771:
768:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
726:
722:
719:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
681:
676:
675:
673:
672:
671:
667:
664:
653:
649:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
630:
626:
622:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
607:
603:
600:
588:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
579:
575:
571:
570:81.109.12.253
567:
559:
558:
555:
551:
550:OpenToppedBus
541:
540:
539:
536:
533:
532:
528:
524:
515:
500:
496:
490:
487:
486:
483:
466:
462:
458:
457:
449:
438:
436:
433:
429:
428:
424:
418:
415:
412:
408:
395:
391:
385:
382:
381:
378:
361:
357:
353:
352:
347:
344:
340:
339:
335:
329:
326:
323:
319:
306:
302:
296:
293:
292:
289:
276:Organizations
272:
268:
267:Organizations
264:
263:
258:
255:
251:
250:
246:
240:
239:Organizations
237:
234:
230:
225:
221:
215:
207:
203:
198:
197:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
131:
130:
122:
121:Verifiability
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
68:
64:
63:Learn to edit
60:
57:
52:
51:
48:
47:
43:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
2341:
2314:
2281:
2252:
2235:
2172:search query
2159:
2141:
2119:45.5.116.242
2085:
2069:
2050:
2049:
2037:BegbertBiggs
2035:
2031:
2030:
2006:
1982:
1980:
1968:
1961:
1942:Cloud Dragon
1938:
1916:
1913:
1888:source check
1867:
1861:
1858:
1831:
1828:
1805:
1780:source check
1759:
1753:
1748:
1744:
1742:
1683:
1680:
1657:
1632:source check
1611:
1605:
1600:
1596:
1594:
1535:
1532:
1426:
1418:
1390:
1387:
1344:
1316:
1263:
1247:
1239:
1231:. Thank you.
1221:
1206:
1193:
1179:
1178:
1153:
1090:
1086:
1055:
1047:
1025:
1000:
947:
852:
847:
842:
799:common sense
648:Frank Furedi
586:
560:
546:
537:
534:
519:
494:
454:
389:
349:
300:
260:
220:WikiProjects
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
105:
30:This is the
2103:MOS:ACRONYM
1974:move review
1393:Henry Bergh
1313:Discrepancy
1051:Children1st
564:—Preceding
365:Social Work
356:Social Work
328:Social Work
210:Start-class
159:free images
42:not a forum
2352:Categories
2302:Necrothesp
2195:, whereas
2099:WP:CONCISE
2051:Relisting.
2032:Relisting.
1925:Report bug
1497:neon white
1384:RSPCA Link
1267:Peterlewis
1111:neon white
969:neon white
685:WP:SELFPUB
652:WP:SELFPUB
523:ෆාට් බුබුල
1908:this tool
1901:this tool
1800:this tool
1793:this tool
1658:Cheers. —
1652:this tool
1645:this tool
1473:Barnardos
1282:WP:WEIGHT
1093:Grogipher
1066:Childline
1044:Scotland?
1003:Matt Stan
912:user page
878:Paulbrock
864:user page
829:Paulbrock
825:Microsoft
811:user page
782:Paulbrock
767:user page
746:Paulbrock
732:Paulbrock
718:user page
696:Paulbrock
663:user page
621:Paulbrock
599:user page
99:if needed
82:Be polite
32:talk page
2170:as this
1914:Cheers.—
1806:Cheers.—
1696:cbignore
1548:cbignore
1332:2006. --
1202:fair use
1186:fair use
692:WP:UNDUE
566:unsigned
67:get help
40:This is
38:article.
2315:Support
2269:Jumbo T
2253:Support
2160:Support
1838:my edit
1816::Online
1745:checked
1690:my edit
1668::Online
1597:checked
1542:my edit
843:exactly
497:on the
392:on the
303:on the
165:WP refs
153:scholar
2282:Oppose
2228:WP:NCA
2211:, and
2168:WP:NCA
2144:buidhe
2088:buidhe
2070:Oppose
2015:– Per
1704:nobots
1556:nobots
216:scale.
137:Google
2319:RSPCA
2261:RSPCA
2111:RSPCA
2107:NAACP
2013:NSPCC
1983:moved
1511:BozMo
1458:BozMo
1429:BozMo
1370:BozMo
1334:BozMo
1299:BozMo
1286:BozMo
1251:BozMo
1157:BozMo
1134:BozMo
1062:sspca
1058:rspca
1032:BozMo
1026:pete
985:BozMo
908:white
892:BozMo
860:white
807:white
763:white
714:white
659:white
595:white
180:JSTOR
141:books
95:Seek
36:NSPCC
2331:talk
2306:talk
2273:talk
2265:RSPB
2238:Dank
2230:per
2199:and
2166:and
2123:talk
2101:and
2059:talk
2041:talk
2025:talk
1998:talk
1946:talk
1749:true
1601:true
1514:talk
1501:talk
1481:talk
1461:talk
1447:talk
1432:talk
1411:talk
1373:talk
1352:talk
1337:talk
1323:talk
1302:talk
1289:talk
1271:talk
1254:talk
1194:this
1160:talk
1137:talk
1115:talk
1097:talk
1079:talk
1035:talk
988:talk
973:talk
955:talk
915:talk
905:neon
895:talk
882:talk
867:talk
857:neon
833:talk
814:talk
804:neon
786:talk
770:talk
760:neon
750:talk
736:talk
721:talk
711:neon
700:talk
666:talk
656:neon
625:talk
602:talk
592:neon
574:talk
527:talk
173:FENS
147:news
84:and
2298:SAS
2294:FBI
2290:CIA
2286:RAF
2257:BBC
2243:Jae
1882:RfC
1852:to
1774:RfC
1736:to
1726:to
1716:to
1626:RfC
1588:to
1578:to
1568:to
1407:SJB
489:Low
384:Low
295:Low
187:TWL
2354::
2333:)
2308:)
2296:,
2292:,
2288:,
2275:)
2263:,
2259:,
2207:,
2140:)
2136:·
2125:)
2117:.
2084:)
2080:·
2061:)
2048:—
2029:—
2011:→
2000:)
1966:.
1948:)
1895:.
1890:}}
1886:{{
1787:.
1782:}}
1778:{{
1702:{{
1698:}}
1694:{{
1639:.
1634:}}
1630:{{
1554:{{
1550:}}
1546:{{
1495:--
1483:)
1449:)
1413:)
1368:--
1354:)
1325:)
1273:)
1204:.
1155:--
1132:--
1099:)
1081:)
1053:)
1016:-
1012:--
957:)
884:)
835:)
788:)
752:)
738:)
702:)
627:)
590:--
576:)
552:-
529:)
167:)
65:;
2329:(
2304:(
2271:(
2138:c
2134:t
2132:(
2121:(
2082:c
2078:t
2057:(
2043:)
2039:(
2023:(
1996:(
1991:)
1987:(
1944:(
1927:)
1923:(
1910:.
1903:.
1802:.
1795:.
1654:.
1647:.
1479:(
1445:(
1409:(
1350:(
1321:(
1269:(
1095:(
1077:(
1049:(
953:(
880:(
831:(
784:(
748:(
734:(
698:(
623:(
572:(
525:(
501:.
396:.
307:.
222::
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
69:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
