Talk:The Party of Death

Latest comment: 8 years ago by 99.104.125.199 in topic Negatie reviews NOW

CITATION NOW!

edit

"Ponnuru points out that this shift coincided with the loss of a Democrat majority."

is this true or false? without citation this is misleading.. removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.237.65 (talkcontribs)


Negatie reviews NOW

edit

Currently this article is in violation of NPOV as there are no critical articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.237.65 (talkcontribs)

That's not true. 'A Frigid and Pitiless Dogma' has been there since 2006-06-19, when I added the reviews section. WP:NPOV means representing significant views objectively; and that's what I did. If you have more reviews (worthy of inclusion) please add them. Al001 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
All negative reviews are missing a decade later... 99.104.125.199 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reinstated sentence

edit

N.B. As per WP:NPOV I'm not proffering a personal opinion but a summary. Here is the sentence and its justification:

Removed reinstated sentence

edit

Conclusion you draw is overly complicated, and far from objective. You failed to provide source material in your actual edit, although I see you backed it up on this page. However, this is pure opinion and not information, and so does not belong. "Its' sensationalist stance tempts a dichotomy" is not an objective, informative sentence. People do not come to Wikipedia for opinion. I also moved the quote from the author into the reviews section, as a counterpoint to Derbyshire's accusation of a religious viewpoint in writing, instead of being in a section of its own. Smacked of amateurism. Agree with earlier statement, needs critical reviews. Is definitely not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mos bratrud (talkcontribs) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply