Talk:Species Traitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] bias

This article is clearly biased in favor of the rather stupid, completely marginal views put forth in Species Traitor. It says of the first issue, "In retrospect, while having some good articles, it was no less of an introductory-feeler issue." Who thinks it had "some good articles"? The fan who wrote this article? Malcomc 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objects, I deleted that sentence, though others could try and make the article approximate the NPOV. Malcomc 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to your whole questioning of the article since the language you use is inflammatory and certainly carries with it many POV's. I think someone unfamiliar with the work but familiar with wikipedia would be better suited to criticize this entry seeing as how your personal bias is completely negative towards it and I don't see how that is any better than the "fan who wrote the article". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.246.84 (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Word. 72.21.196.64 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Malcomc, you are truly a contrarian. I've seen you (on many occasions) dwell on articles which grate against your preconceived ideological framework/s. "Stupid", the word you use, is hardly "neutral" (however it is that we are defining that term around here). Also, your claim that this journal expresses "completely marginal" views requires some proof. Where are the studies proving your claim? Were those studies peer-reviewed? R4Cobordism 01:32, 2 May 2008