Talk:High Justice

Part of the CoDominium Series?
I thought that High Justice series wasn't part of the CodDominium series? Does anyone know what Pournelle had to say about it? --Eldarone 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a fit myself, either. But the publisher certainly thinks so.  Discussion at chronology.org favors excluding it.  Pournelle's entry at the isfdb says yes, and lists it and Exiles to Glory together with Laurie Jo Hansen as the link.  I'll add a few more weasel words to distance High Justice from the CoDominium. Djdaedalus 15:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No NPOV
There is no doubt that the stories reflect Pournelle's political and ideological point of view. That does not mean that the articel about them should also reflect and outspokenly endorse them. For example, it is a ligitmate view to think it would be better when companies have no trade unions, but this very much of non-Neutral Point of View. The whole article should be re-written adding "Pournelle thinks that" or "The story reflects Pournelle's view about" etc. User:Adam Keller
 * This article accurately reflects the stories which is the subject of the article, and the stories are not written NPOV. Give the readers of en:wiki some credit for being able to tell that the POV is on the part of Pournelle without having to be led by the hand with every point of contention.KTo288 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)