Talk:The Demon in the Freezer

NPOV

Saying that the material on the 2001 anthrax incidents is "somewhat awkwardly" interwoven with the rest of the narrative is patently POV. Please feel free to reinsert this if you can attribute that view to a review or other source. Zefryl (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--
Here is my attempt to make the entry neutral, rather than negative (my personal opinion is more positive than that of at least SOME of the prior editors, but I tried to be fair to their viewpoints).

There was a mistaken assumption in the previous version regarding why 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax events were in a book primarily devoted to smallpox. The author's website explains it: (see About Richard Preston a few paragraphs before the end of this long, but enlightening, webpage).

BTW, I'm very impressed by the level of detail inserted on 22 Feb. 2008 on the contents of the book's sections -- nice work by someone (IP address only, no ID). SFFrog (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--
I rewrote the sentence in question. If they want to call the book disjointed, they need to cite reliable sources. 67.87.67.56 (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Sign In

Too much editing has been done to this article by those who have forgotten to Sign In. Please remember to do so. Thanks. SFFrog (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced note

I found a "citation" (really more a note) that states the following:

According to the book's author, there was a mistaken assumption in some reviews regarding why 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax events were in a book primarily devoted to smallpox. The author's website explains it: (see About Richard Preston a few paragraphs before the end of this long, but enlightening, webpage)

Aside from making an aesthetic judgement ("long, but enlightening"), said page does not also back up the point it is making. The about page (or rather, the old version of it) states that the book discusses smallpox because the book is about bioterrorism, and smallpox could be a potent bioweapon, rather than calling reviewers mistaken.

I have decided to remove this note and reuse it for a sentence about the book's development:

Preston decided to write the book following the 2001 anthrax attacks, discussing the two diseases together because both could be potential biological weapons.^[1]

I hope this is an improvement over the previous passage. Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Preston, Richard. "About Richard Preston". Archived from the original on January 24, 2009.

[1] Preston, Richard. "About Richard Preston". Archived from the original on January 24, 2009.

[1]