Talk:Women Who Work (book)

POV
ALL the reviews cited in the article are from liberal media outlets and there isn't a single positive review that is cited here. This should include both positive and negative sources, otherwise the conservative media will accuse Wikipedia of being biased again. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried my best to find not just individual reviews but articles summarizing the critical reception, from the most high-profile sources I could find. The BBC, for example, considered the AP review (which I cited WaPo for) rather positive; The Atlantic and The Independent (the latter of which again is British, not American) say the majority critical reception is negative. If you know of sources that say the book received more positive reviews than I gave it credit for, by all means present them. It is, however, not Wikipedia's fault if the book was widely panned, and it would be not neutral to scrape up every positive review we can find just to make the critical reception look more balanced than it is. If conservative media accuse Wikipedia of being biased because it accurately summarizes the facts, so be it. Huon (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no evidence of significant omitted viewpoints has been presented, I have removed the maintenance tags. Huon (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now the article has been tagged because, quite the opposite, it supposedly gives too much weight to some (which?) "ideas, incidents, or controversies". I don't see it. It's an accurate summary of what reviews, and review aggregators, have said about the book. There aren't even any controversies mentioned, unless the fact that critics mostly didn't like it is supposed to be controversial. Since - despite this talk page discussion which predates the newest tagging - no specific shortcomings of the article have been pointed out, I'll remove the tag. Huon (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)