Talk:Thought for the Day: Difference between revisions
assessed article for WikiProject Radio |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
{{WP Religion|class=Start|importance=Low}} |
{{WP Religion|class=Start|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Radio|class=start|importance=low|tf=UK Radio}} |
{{WikiProject Radio|class=start|importance=low|tf=UK Radio}} |
||
==Section on Pope Benedict== |
|||
This section appears to be highly biased.There are 65 words stating that a single episode was made by the Pope, and the context of the year when that episode was made. 14 of those words briefly describe the contents of that episode. This is followed by 45 words about opposition to that episode from special interest groups |
|||
The whole inclusion would appear unnecessary, but having far more biased criticism about the episode than information about it's contents seems highly inappropriate. |
|||
THis section should be expanded or deleted. |
|||
==Inclusion of Platitude of the Day link== |
==Inclusion of Platitude of the Day link== |
||
Revision as of 16:14, 29 April 2013
 | BBC Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Religion Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Radio: UK Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Section on Pope Benedict
This section appears to be highly biased.There are 65 words stating that a single episode was made by the Pope, and the context of the year when that episode was made. 14 of those words briefly describe the contents of that episode. This is followed by 45 words about opposition to that episode from special interest groups
The whole inclusion would appear unnecessary, but having far more biased criticism about the episode than information about it's contents seems highly inappropriate.
THis section should be expanded or deleted.
Inclusion of Platitude of the Day link
According to WP:Notability "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles", so notability is not the correct criterion to determine whether a link should be included.
As far as I can tell it might match Wikipedia:EXT#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 12 "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". I'm not sure how "recognized authority" is meant to be interpreted. Is anyone aware of any more detail on "recognized authority"?
Speaking as an atheist / agnostic with an interest in Thought for the Day, the site provides a valuable analysis of the Thought of the Day thoughts from an non faith perspective presented in the form of a mild parody. I am sensitive to the fact that some may find this offensive, but it is not Wikipedia policy to censor content because some users may find the content offensive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Images_of_Muhammad for a recent example of this). I consider the link to be valuable and relevant as it provides relevant information on the response to the TftD restriction on non religious thoughts.
I've tried to amend the text that was used to provide more explanation of what the site is for, and why it is relevant. Perhaps we could work on tidying that up a bit. I think it's NPOV at the moment, but please edit it if you disagree. --Robhu 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That would seem more appropriate than creating a separate topic at this time. Neilplatform1 13:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilplatform1 (talk • contribs)
- Neilplatform1 - are you saying that you think the article would be better with the Criticism heading removed? I added the heading after I made the comments here about the include of the link. --Robhu 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhu (talk • contribs)
A Category is Now a List, but where is it best placed?
I created a category entitled "Radio 4 Thought for the Day Presenters", but this got deleted in March 2009, on the grounds that it was probably better presented as a list. I have put a list of "Thought for the Day" presenters in the article, but structurally, I wonder whether it is in the best position in the article. For example, the reference to the feature on Radio 2 could arguably precede the list. Does any one have any suggestions? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Good article
I just wanted to say that I think this is a very good article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
NPOV
I've place the NPOV banner on the page because the majority of the article is concerned with criticism from a special interest group. It seems too much emphasis is being placed on this and there is little or nothing about the opposing view. CarterBar (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
List not prose needed
I disagree with the tag that says the list may be better presented as prose - the list makes the article easier to navigate. ACEOREVIVED (talk)
Lift Up Your Hearts
>> Lift Up Your Hearts [...] was first broadcast five mornings a week on the BBC Home Service from December 1939, initially at 7.30, though soon moved to 7.47. <<
It was, in fact, broadcast on six days a week (Mon–Sat), and was moved to 7.55 (not AFAIK 7.47) from May 1940. I believe it was at the end of WW2 – when broadcast weather forecasts returned to radio – that Lift Up Your Hearts was rescheduled to 7.50, to precede the weather forecast at 7.55. Will delay making any edits, however, until such time as others have had an opportunity to substantiate the 7.47 claim. --Picapica (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)