Talk:Reasons to Vote for Democrats

NPOV dispute

Even the first sentence of this page does not present fairly, proportionately, nor without bias the book in question. A positive view is presented through Kimball’s endorsement, but even the sources linked to the endorsements include in their titles ‘Trump trolls Democrats’ and ‘but there’s a catch’. I have not read the book, so I have no preformed opinions about it, but the introductory section clearly illustrates a non-neutral bias, lacking even a basic summary of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100d:b06d:62ca:edcd:70ea:4fa5:4ea5 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you reveal the joke in the first sentence of the article?

"containing 266 empty pages"

Its like telling the end of Harry Potter. Honestly, I have never found a better summary with all the reasons to vote blue.

62.226.90.50 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always made book summaries, if you wanna know an info about a book whilst still reading it, just hold your appetite to read its article, because Wikipedia may contain spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. GeraldWL 14:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

This page spends a lot of space on conservatives praising the book, including using WP:RSP-redlisted sources as references for its reception, and then adds on more with them criticizing the Democratic spinoff. For these reasons I'm going to tag it for unreliable sources and NPOV concerns. (If the tags are prematurely removed, I would suggest seeking help at the NPOV noticeboard.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I oppose on the concern that this article is somehow conservative activism, despite being a conservative-liberal. The lead seemed to be fine; the last claim was quoted from reliable sources. The summary and background also show no bias; opinionated statements are attributed to Knowles. The receptions come from people of all sides on the political spectrum.

If your concern is on the Daily Wire site, I included that because Knowles has a tie with DW, and it would be noteworthy to listen to what an affiliated source thinks of it; an about-self fashion. The DW is filtered to be used with caution, but not necessarily prohibited and unreliable. the claim on there being "Reasons to Vote for Republicans" is also stated on a WaPo source.

I do find HuffPost to be filtered in the PS page; I can remove it if you think it is unreliable. However considering all biased opinions are attributed, and the DW source is only used to capture a more opposite-180 lens on this and does not contain inaccurate infos, I do not think an NPOV and NRS tag is warranted. GeraldWL 06:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV fixed?

After some reformatting and wording changes, NPOV should have been returned. Please confirm or edit further to ensure neutrality. Sources could be changed but that was beyond the scope of my edits 76.126.246.41 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Best seller

Lead of article says "It became the number one best-selling book on Amazon.com in 2017.[1][2]" This implies it sold more books than any other in 2017. Which is obviously false, since the "sources" are Feb and March 2017. Under Reception we have "The book ranked number 85 in Amazon as of April 2017 as quoted by the Los Angeles Times,[5] and became a bestseller on March" So I made it "It was a best-selling book on Amazon.com in March 2017" 111.220.83.242 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making that edit-- stuff like that are very overlooked on Wikipedia. GeraldWL 11:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)