Talk:Robert Beckford

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Beckford is now at the Wesley Centre, Oxford Brookes University. See http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/wco/staff.html!. 80.0.107.223 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

           Criticism section

It is unfair for the opinions of evangelicals to seem so important on the page about an academic, when there is no academic criticism of his work. I have therefor added a balance to the criticism section. As the majority of academic peers of Robert Beckford seem not to find fault with his findings, it is outrageous that such a group should even have quotes on the Robert Beckford page,as there criticism is obviously less biased and less relevant than that of a fellow academic would have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.178.44 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a "citation be needed" to prove that criticism of his journalistic technique by journalists is lacking, when without a citation of such criticism being supplied, it would surely be fairer to presume its actual absence (kind of the point of the concept "citation needed" in the first place) 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that is a fair assumption. You are saying that he has never been criticized by another journalist. Can you find a source for this information? Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is the responsibility of anyone but the claimer of there being any criticism from journalists to find evidence of its existence. thanks. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not allow readers of this article to presume the actual absense of "criticism of his journalistic technique by journalists" by not mentioning it? --Uncle Milty (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Milty here. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not call the section "Evangelical criticism" to make it clear what type of criticism can be verified? That alone would lead the reader to presume general criticism of Beckford's work, when all that is being covered is the opining of evangelicals. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is clear enough when the criticism is read. It appears to me that you are trying to advance some personal agenda here (WP:POV) rather than simply improving the encyclopedic quality of the article. --Uncle Milty (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it appears to me that you seem determined to push the opinions of evangelicals as being "general criticism" when it is perfectly reasonable and fair to emphasise the source of all the cited criticism being evangelical in the section heading, as otherwise it gives the false impression of general criticism, which is unfair to the reputation of the subject in question 92.235.178.44 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, the section is one-sided and limited to the criticisms of a few groups of individuals from the same religious background. Why not create a section called "Reception" and incorporate both sides of the story? That seems like the best course of action, especially for a biography of a living person. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an improvement on the current biased slant of the section I agree 92.235.178.44 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody add a link to the Scots article on Robert Beckford

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_beckford

92.235.178.44 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 08:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nishkid64:D 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Evangelical Criticism section, the way that the Church of England section is hyperlinked to the wikipedia page suggests that the Evangelical Council is representative of the Church as a whole. This section should probably be rewritten to be less misleading. 81.106.124.131 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His documentary on religion and popular music

Beckford produced a documentary for Channel 4 a few years ago, looking at religious references in rock music, ranging from the moment gospel music became the secular roots of rock 'n' roll, and the effects of artists with religious views. Can this be cited somehow?--MartinUK (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beckford challenges the long-standing belief by many Christians that the Bible is the pure unadulterated word of God untouched by human hand.

Research shows that almost no Christians believe that. Delete it. Rustygecko (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]