Talk:The Party of Death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.237.65 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Negatie reviews NOW
Currently this article is in violation of NPOV as there are no critical articles —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
[edit] 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#Reviews.
- on such right to life issues as abortion and euthanasia, - see the website for the book The Party of Death#External links 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)
