Talk:The Party of Death

CITATION NOW!
"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 (talk • contribs)

Negatie reviews NOW
Currently this article is in violation of NPOV as there are no critical articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.237.65 (talk • contribs)
 * 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)
 * All negative reviews are missing a decade later... 99.104.125.199 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Reinstated sentence
N.B. As per WP:NPOV I'm not proffering a personal opinion but a summary. Here is the sentence and its justification:
 * Polemically titled - see polemic.
 * and welcomed by some as being a rational and logical exposition - see The Party of Death.
 * on such right to life issues as abortion and euthanasia, - see the website for the book The Party of Death for topics covered.
 * its sensationalist stance tempts a dichotomy. - it's called 'The Party of Death...'. Again, see the website for the book for evidence of sensationalism. Finally, the book 'tempts a dichotomy' by attempting to absolutely split the issues it considers down party lines: 'Is the Democratic Party the “Party of Death”? If you look at their agenda they are.' Book Details - The Party of Death. Al001 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed reinstated sentence
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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)