User talk:Ed Poor/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book)

Neoconservative Label
Calling someone a neo-conservative seems to be POV pushing IMO. I am removing it from the description. If there is a credible source that shows him identifying himself as a neo-conservative, feel free to put it back in. Arnabdas (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Even if he actually does subscribe to that particular school of thought, it's irrelevant in this context. (I would add that the term isn't inherently POV. It actually has a very specific meaning which is often relevant, but it's usually just tossed around as a pejorative.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not delete
This is an important topic. If Kohn's thesis is wrong, we need to know where he went wrong. Perhaps he is exaggerating a few errors or is simply ignoring the unbiased stories.

If Kohn's theses is correct, then it's obviously an important claim that he is making. We need to know how bias comes into the news, and what we can do about it.

Please don't delete the article just because it's incomplete. Many a stub has blossomed with a little tender loving care. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is a right-wing POV fork and book promo, and Ed, as a member of the Unification Church, owner of News World Communications, the Washington Times and Insight Magazine -- all strident right-wing media and political organizations, you are WAY abusing Wikipedia here by creating an article to promo a book that attacks another newspaper -- especially a news paper that has criticized Moon, the Unification Church and it's media holdings. Way outtaline Ed. WNDL42 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted immediately WNDL42 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please avoid personal remarks and focus on what's wrong with the article. Does it present one POV, in a way which violates our commitment to neutrality? If so, please state what viewpoint the article endorses. Otherwise, your "way outtaline" comment is meaningless. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is POV about the existence of a book? By what logic can any neutrally written encyclopedia article be a "promo" in any way? And if an article identical to this one was created by someone you couldn't accuse of bias, would you have any grounds whatsoever for removing it? 68.181.240.185 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found Wikipedia's criteria for book notability, BK, by which this article does qualify for exclusion. So on technical policy, there is reason to remove this, but that doesn't change the fact that WNDL42's explanations and accusations here are entirely irrelevant at best and intentionally mean spirited and discriminatory at worst. 68.181.240.185 (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Editorial review"
I removed this section as it is misleading to present this as an editorial review from Amazon. While it is in the "editorial review" section, it is the "book description", a summary taken from the book's self description (see images of the flaps and back cover). Reviews by other sources are labeled with the source's name: see, for instance, A Brief History of Time with reviews by Amazon.com and Library Journal. If the section is re-added, it should be done in a way that makes clear that it is the book's self-description, not a review by Amazon or anyone else. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)