Talk:National Religious Broadcasters

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expand article

This article needs more external sources. It relies too much on internal links. Plan to expand the article with content from verifiable, reliable sources. FloNight ^talk 12:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheocracyWatch,

This version of the article said "Cornell University's Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy acknowledges the linking of National Religious Broadcasters with Dominionism."

Now, there a couple problems. First, It's TheocracyWatch who said it. While the statement is literally true, it tries to pass Cornell's credibility onto TheocracyWatch. People can read the article on TheocracyWatch to find out what relationship it has to Cornell. I fixed that.

Second, the url http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm, actually doesn't support what's said. Rather, it just points to the Harper's article. I didn't remove the text yet, as I'm sure TheocracyWatch does in fact consider NRB to be linked to dominionism (I would be stunned if they didn't have that opinion). But, there should be a more relevant link to provide. --Rob 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, is my latest change a better way of spelling out the relationship? I think the university that sponsors the project is important information and needs to be included. I also reread the TheocracyWatch pages again and then tweaked the wording to reflect the point of the entry. FloNight ^talk 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the concern I have, is we're going by what TheocracyWatch and CRESP say. There's zero indication, Cornell supports or endorses TheocracyWatch. University's tend to be open places, that may have all sorts of affiliated groups on them. We shouldn't try to imply Cornell in any way endorses TheocracyWatch. A project of a project of a University, may have little to do with the University, other then geography. For all I know, Cornell, may well have other political organizations, on the opposite political spectrum, with similiar attachements. One concern I have is there is no indication of academic qualification here. The "founder" of TheocracyWatch is described on their site as an "educator". Now, if somebody at a University is called merely an "educator", that suggests they are not a professor and don't have much credentials, like a PhD. If they had something worth mentioning they would. Mentioning Cornell, seems to give TheocracyWatch, a phony suggestion of academic qualification and rigour. CRESP may well have such competetance in some areas. But, it seems unlikely TheocracyWatch does. I, by default, distrust any source that says they publish what no mainstream media is willing to publish. Having said all these, I will accept the current wording, because I think the name "TheocracyWatch" pretty much discloses the bias of the organization. I think the main thing, we should be looking to do now, is adding some good independent source information to the TheocracyWatch article, which can better explain the organization to readers of various articles that cite them. --Rob 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kind of a reach to go back five years to add this section? I don't know much about either and never heard of dominionism, but devoting a quarter of the article to one writer's opinion to create controversy just doesn't seem objective. Why is it included?--it122 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.41.169 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Religious Broadcasters. 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) 03:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy"

The Darling event is nowhere near significant enough to become part of what is considered "encyclopedic" of the NRB. Also, I struggle to think of "Morning Joe" as source material for what is considered an encyclopedia entry. And, technically, I believe Darling resigned, making the statement inaccurate.

I suggest the section be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:2240:7DAD:9D93:11D7:B955:CED5 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]