Talk:Restoring the Lost Constitution

POV
I personally agree with most of the content of this article, but I'm not very comfortable with how it's being presented. Presenting a single side like this without a prominent note (like, say, a box) that the content represents the author's opinion rather than the prevailing one just seems off for Wikipedia. &mdash;Brent Dax 04:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV tag for due to the manner in which the books arguments are presented. It should be made clear throughout that the content of the summery is the opinion of the books author. Statements like "Bernet argues that..." should be added. Also criticisms of the book in the book should be presented. I would imagine that at least one prominent person has criticized the book at some point. --Cab88 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that all the book's arguments are presented after the sentence "A summary of the book follows" render "Bernet argues" redundant. Or at least, allows them to be limited; there's no need to repeatedly beat the reader over the head with "This is just what the book says!" after it's been established once already that the article's saying what the book says.  'Course, seeing how the article's horribly written as it stands, the additional ugliness of that redundancy may be irrelevant.  The Literate Engineer 00:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the article is useful to people who wish to have an overview of some of the key issues as seen from one side of the political spectrum. Perhaps it would be good to mention the author's name a few more times (to avoid a kind of "War of the Worlds" scenario, where people forget the opening caveat or tune in late), but so long as it is a fair synopsis of the author's viewpoint it should have as much place here as a synopsis of the political ideas of Aristotle. The one thing I might suggest is to have hyperlinks to a synopses of the views of authors who take significantly different positions from that of Mr. Barnett. -- A User in New York, 21 January 2006

The first comment above seems to confuse objectivity and mere orthodoxy. This is standard journalistic practice, but still not a good thing. However, I do understand the propagandistic taint you are concerned about. Authors ought to (1) try to limit opinion-spouting in articles purporting to be factual, and (2) own up to their convictions in all political articles. That means all authors, though, not just those with minority views. Sean.stromsten 17:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article reads more like a summary of the book rather than an article about the book. That is not what Wikipedia is for. --JHP 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the lengthier sections because to be quite frank, no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, the sections are more of a personal review of the book than an actual encyclopedic and neutral look at the book. If someone who can re-write them more neutrally can go over them, I have no problem with the synopsis being extended, but the sections I removed were just not encyclopedic. Despite how closely they took from the book, those sections were more one person's original research and review of the book than an actual synopsis. I did, however, find several meaty reviews to create a criticism section.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Added Infobox
I've added an infobox, and intend to chew through this article with the aim of aligning it with the Wikiprojects Books non-fiction article template. This should take care of the POV complaint, as well as rendering it an article about the book, rather than simply a summary of the book. Comments? FusionKnight (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The concepts presented in this book have received criticism in a fairly active debate during the pass half decade—yet there is no criticism section in the article. We need to find some sources and get the article to fairly represent the other sides of the debate to balance the article. N2e (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)