Talk:The Diary of a Public Man

[Untitled]
This article has several parts where the tone is too closely related to the book, making the neutrality questionable. This almost reads like a review instead of an encyclopedia article. J I P &#124; Talk 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the article is free of bias and is neutral. The fact that it follows the best scholarship is an asset. Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article in fact has the conversational tone of an essay written by a person who has accepted the essential factualness of the Diary and the inevitability of Hurlbert as its author, neither of which has ever been incontrovertibly proven or universally accepted. 72.105.76.135 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)