Talk:Political criticism
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Deletion Protestation
editDeletion? But there is art criticism and literary criticism? Ben Tibbetts 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Conscripcartoon.jpg
edit
Image:Conscripcartoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Bible is political commentary?
editCan anyone explain how the Bible is political commentary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.113.0.26 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Terrible article
editIt should be deleted. Why does it lead off by describing a supposed controversy that is not seriously debated in democratic societies before even discussing the subject of the article? Why does it link to the Effect of Propaganda - political criticism is not propaganda. Why does it link to someone's political blog? The "See also" section makes no sense. The whole thing is incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.57.173 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Almost three years later, it still sucks. Rather than do anything about it, I've tagged it as sucking. Perhaps by 2018, things will be better. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)