Talk:Karoline Leach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Objectivity/Tone
The text obviously favours Leach and her theories; the dramatic anti-Leach statements have no citation, but the pro-Leach quotes do. Article makes no reference to what Leach actually claims. Scholars such as Cohen are dismissed without cause. I cut the phrase 'there have been no systematic rebuttals' - they abound. Leach is a theorist and should be portrayed as such.--128.36.43.176 07:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No mention of WHY Cohen, et al. dispute Leach, or even what Leach claims; their reasoning is just as valid as the laudatory quotes.--72.93.4.159 19:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
At best, still treads a very fine line on NPOV - we should see the grounds on which Cohen, etc. dismiss Leach, rather than just having the fact, and then seeing it countered with a bunch of specific praise. As said above, Leach is a theorist. This is not a case of the Carroll 'establishment' simply not liking what she has to say - there are legitimate questions about many of her sources. I'm not the person to write about this, but someone should. --Viledandy 16:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Cohen doesn't seem to have produced any specific factual refutation of any of her points. I have looked and can't find anything beyond generalisations. --PathogenicResponse 00:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)