Talk:The Rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Possible NPOV issues here. The whole entry seems contemptuous of the authors and the book's premise. Now, it's possible that both actually DESERVE the contempt, but it shouldn't show this blatantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.90.55 (talk) 06:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I can't really agree. There is no POV in the first paragraph, the second one simply describes reaction to the book, then there are examples and then a fact-with-a-citation which sheds light on the reliability of the authors (that it is a funny/ironic fact does not make it inaccurate or irrelevant). I don't see anything POV in this article. If you write accurately about someone who thoroughly deserves criticism, your article will look POV to someone who is not aware that criticism is deserved. Man with two legs 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Contempt of the book as sexist and anti-feminist drivel is not POV, it's reality.

It might do to include a mention of a positive criticism of the book if one can be found from a reliable source. Man with two legs 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, is anyone else highly offended by the pic caption??? REALLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.13.205 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not me. I can see no case for being offended by it. It is slightly amusing, but none the less accurate for that from what I have heard. Man with two legs 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am; Also its impossible to prove its true.JohnGaltJr (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted this image from the article, since there doesn't seem to be anything else around it that supports that it's relevant to this article in any way. Stack (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is missing some of the rules. Rule 01 is missing from the list and the introduction mentions there are 34 rules altogether, but the list only goes up to 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.194.67 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV alert

via OTRS, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Rules – Zedla (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corrigan quote

I can't seem to verify the purported quote by Maureen Corrigan (other wikis and one tangential reference in [1]). It doesn't show up on NPR's website but I'm not certain they archive transcripts of Fresh Air. I've removed the quote and have inserted an admission by their part about their qualifications (Jet ref, Today show) which would seem to hold more weight than a purportedly sarcastic comment by reviewer Corrigan. – Zedla (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)