Talk:Restoring the Lost Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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. —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)