Talk:Eat Out to Help Out
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
.svg){kind=link}
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19 , a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Satirical memes?
[edit ]Are satirical memes useful in Wikipedia?
For this topic for example:
Htrowsle (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
"Personal opinion"
[edit ]There is no possible justification for introducing a new section entitled "personal opinion" to scare quote one particular expert's opinion on the effects of the scheme. There is certainly no consensus for it. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, it is totally undue to treat this particular personal opinion as one of the impacts of the scheme. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- The opinion of a member of the UK's SAGE committee during the pandemic on the impacts of the scheme is clearly DUE in the section "impacts". It already contains the opinion of the far less qualified and competent Boris Johnson. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, these opinions are reactions to the scheme then, so perhaps belong in a separate "reactions" section, as we often see for reactions in other articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- I don't think it is necessary to do that here, attribution of opinion is enough, and I don't think there is a real counter-view. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, the counter view is that the scheme was a resounding success, a view expressed in this article in The Guardian, amongst others. Should we add that, and all the others like it, to the 'impacts' section too do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- That is an outdated contemporary view on its short-term results for the hospitality industry, rather than its catastrophic effects on the spread of COVID, which were a factor in creating the conditions which necessitated local lockdowns throughout autumn of 2020. Having said that, if decent scholarly articles on the economic effects of the program exist, they should be included. I wouldn't say including contemporary news coverage was warranted, as it couldn't consider the negative economic effects caused by the policy increasing COVID transmission and its role in causing the autumn lockdowns.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, the scheme was intended to support and create jobs in the hospitality industry to counter the economic impacts of the pandemic, not to reduce the transmission of Covid. In that respect, the impact was apparently that it had been very successful. Why omit that from the impacts section?
- Either way, I don't think Edmunds's view is an "impact", it is a reaction, so needs to be put into an appropriately named section or removed.
- I wonder if anyone else has a view on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, Patrick Vallance has a view.[1] Thincat (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- That is an outdated contemporary view on its short-term results for the hospitality industry, rather than its catastrophic effects on the spread of COVID, which were a factor in creating the conditions which necessitated local lockdowns throughout autumn of 2020. Having said that, if decent scholarly articles on the economic effects of the program exist, they should be included. I wouldn't say including contemporary news coverage was warranted, as it couldn't consider the negative economic effects caused by the policy increasing COVID transmission and its role in causing the autumn lockdowns.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, the counter view is that the scheme was a resounding success, a view expressed in this article in The Guardian, amongst others. Should we add that, and all the others like it, to the 'impacts' section too do you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- I don't think it is necessary to do that here, attribution of opinion is enough, and I don't think there is a real counter-view. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- @Boynamedsue, these opinions are reactions to the scheme then, so perhaps belong in a separate "reactions" section, as we often see for reactions in other articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]
- The opinion of a member of the UK's SAGE committee during the pandemic on the impacts of the scheme is clearly DUE in the section "impacts". It already contains the opinion of the far less qualified and competent Boris Johnson. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]