Talk:Daily Word

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Notability[edit]

This article was previously tagged with a Notability|books tag and a Primarysources tag. I removed both due to extensive new additions designed to address the previous concerns, as well as the fact that Daily Word is a magazine, not a book, so the book type tag was incorrect. Links to newspaper & magazine articles have been added, such as a link to Oprah magazine where Oprah discusses her love of Daily Word. Hopefully these links help establish notability. Naturelover47 (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not, as yet, demonstrate that the topic meets any of the specific criteria in WP:BK, nor the general criteria WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), so I've retagged it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched references and edited text. While the Daily Word may not be notable among humanists and scientists, the Daily Word is notable among Christians and other spiritually-minded people. --Trelawnie (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG & WP:BK. Your additions do not meet wikipedia standards & Daily Word is not notable by wikipedia guidelines. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I find the subject at least referenced here, here, and also at least mentioned in the various sources here and here. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those sources is just a press release -- hardly reliable. The first barely mentions DW. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But two of the books on the first page of the google scholar page, both published by the Templeton Foundation Press (whose reliability as a publisher I don't know but assume to be good) mention the DW to a reasonable degree. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What two books? The only 'Templeton' I can find on the Google Scholar search is "S Templeton". And if they "mention the DW to a reasonable degree" then why did you include the first two red herrings? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google books has "The Unity Movement" and "New Thought, New Wisdom" both published by Templeton on the first page of listed books, which was the third link. And I'm afraid I was just thoughtlessly adding all the Google links initially, sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daily Word. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621163714/http://www.oprah.com:80/slidepopup/omagazine/200907-omag-oprah-backyard-photos/7 to http://www.oprah.com/slidepopup/omagazine/200907-omag-oprah-backyard-photos/7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daily Word. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]