Talk:Clap for Our Carers

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from Clap for Our Carers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Britons are being urged to clap for their carers every Thursday evening during the country's COVID-19 pandemic? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clap for our Carers.

Under the "Related" section, should there be anything about 'Sing Happy Birthday to the Queen', which gathered a fair amount of media attention at the time, but was a massive flop? Or is it not really notable? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For how long is the applause meant to last? Or to be more specific: are there any reliable sources for this? MrStoofer (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The practice has been criticised by some political commentators and medical workers as an empty gesture these are weasel words and need to be clarified by "who"? Name names, name titles, name orgs. "In the cited source" isn't good enough, put them up front for the reader to see. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources - take your pick. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... etc. Saying "some" is, in this case, sufficient, and naming particular individuals who have criticised the practice is unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clap_for_Our_Carers https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applaudissements_aux_fen%C3%AAtres_pendant_la_pand%C3%A9mie_de_Covid-19 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aplauso_por_los_trabajadores_de_la_salud--Dupacifique (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This English language page is for the English event, the other two are for other countries. So not sure if they should be linked. Probably best to ask on Wikidata, as the way to link together would be to merge on Wikidata. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[DeFacto] reverted my edit mentioning a "Slow Clap" organised by Unison in response to the 1% payrise for NHS staff, for reason of being of "serious NPOV issues". If that's really the case, then how can you explain "Boo for Boris" staying in the article then? Would that not be a NPOV issue also, or have I misunderstood? Although, maybe I would've brought it up in the article's Talk page before I added it in. Bryn89 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn89, per my edit summary, I think it's outside the scope of this article anyway, so the NPOV issues are moot. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came to this article looking for something on this. I cannot see that it falls outside the remit of this article subject (which references both it's origins in similar European activities, and includes a "Related" subsection of it's own successors).

As for being a NPOV, I don't see an issue with the original edit. The current article is good and includes an arguably less neutral example under the "Related" section (Boo for Boris)

Cymrogogoch (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide whether to ditch all the Related section, or keep it. Because like a lot of Related sections of articles, it's getting pretty bloated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth adding a section on the Boo for Boris protest that was directly influenced by this? A bit smaller but was still notable in our area 81.109.218.211 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]