Talk:Talking point/Archives/2012

POV removed

"Talking points are used exclusively by liberals and Democrats to lie to the public and get their inept politicians into office." 82.181.102.15 (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Bias?

This article seems to focus on talking points used by Republicans, especially the Bush Administration. It should be noted that talking points are a tactic used by both parties, with balanced examples from both sides and neutral language used outside the examples.

The "politically correct" and "feminazi" definitions seem especially biased, as it insinuates those are the beliefs of all conservatives.

___

Agreed. At first, I restrained myself and only edited some of the most biased language instead of deleting things. Then I though better. 1) "politically correct" when used as criticism is a rhetorical device, not a talking point. It is not a specific argument or policy *when used as a criticism*. When used positively, it could be a talking point because it refers to a desire for non-offensive language and diversity -- an actual policy. However, the author only defined the word in terms of its opponents... which is not a talking point. 2) "feminazi" is a pejoritive term first used by Rush Limbaugh to refer to what he considers radical feminists. An argument against radical feminism could be a talking point. A pejoritive term referring to radical feminists is not. Therefore, I am deleting both terms from this article. - Anon 20 Nov 2005

However, the article still remains NPOV because it largely focuses on Bush adminsitration talking points and the language used has negative implications.

I have removed the Bush Administration examples, and with them the NPOV tag. May this article remain neutral. NatusRoma 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is still biased, each of the examples refers to Republican talking points, are we to believe that Democrats don't have talking points? Sadly, this sort of partisan POV is rampant throughout Wikipedia articles concerning politics.