Talk:Culture Warrior: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:33, 19 January 2007

would not the critic section violate NPOV? its an encyclopia article. A seperate article possible titled critics of Culture Warrior maybe. Maybe this is where it starts for me. NPOV isn't keeping score of for and against or pro and con its listing the facts and thats it, critics and proponents, sorry either view even balanced in showing is POV. --Xiahou 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged in material from two other articles, Secular Progressive Movement and Secular-progressive. -- Cat Whisperer 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Edited the first few sections for style. I have not read the book, and am not familiar with the material. All of my edits were meant to be for writing style only; if I inadvertently changed any of the meaning, please fix it. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of facism against the ACLU

I can't make sense out of this section. It's one huge paragraph that just sort or rambles and repeats iteself. Worse, I can't tell what parts are direct quotes from the book. It sort of reads like one huge direct quote. I suspect this can be about half as long as it is now without loss of clarity, but I don't know where to begin. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Here are some negative reviews that may help balance out the article: [1] (includes text of Publisher's Weekly review), [2] (points out factual and rhetorical errors in the book). -- Cat Whisperer 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putative group

Given that there is no such group as the "Secular Progressive Movement" outside the imaginings of Bill O'Reilly, the sentence as reverted is incorrect. If you don't like "putative", how about "postulated"? -- Cat Whisperer 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of "putative" before; looking up the definition, I'm just not sure it fits... "postulated" isn't bad. Shall we change it?

Suggest Deletion

This article is just an explanation of one Author's point of view.

None of the information contained in the article is backed up by multiple sources (and doesn't seem to be intended to be).

The ideas discussed in this book have no backing by any source other than the book, are seemingly worthless, and considering they remain the loan view of one man (and his fans), don't warrant a wikipedia article about them.

For a better example of a wikipedia article about a book : Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them or My_Life_(Bill_Clinton_autobiography).

(2 articles with actual encyclopedic information in them)

Just my two cents... if no deletion is made... I'll check back and might rewrite the article meself.

--Jon Ivy 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]