| Revision as of 05:22, 19 April 2009 editCantabo07 (talk | contribs)153 edits deleted the huge list of article quotes which were inappropriate. Instead everybody can go to the source.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:25, 19 April 2009 edit undoAsdfg12345 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,640 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ] (]) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ] (]) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==NPOV etc.== | |||
| Having a section called "criticism" demands having a section called "praise," in the interest of NPOV, which states that the relevant points of view be given air. It would be simpler to just have "Reception" and in there include all kinds of reception, rather than compartmentalising them. To give a clear example, what if we did not have a criticism section but just had "Praise"? Would that be neutral? So I think it's pretty clear. I'll restore it to how it was until we discuss.--<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:25, 19 April 2009
For a more balanced presentation we could draw from the source below as well - instead from a single critical article as being currently done in the article.
Look at http://www.divineperformingarts.org/reviews/the-media
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Cantabo07 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
NPOV etc.
Having a section called "criticism" demands having a section called "praise," in the interest of NPOV, which states that the relevant points of view be given air. It would be simpler to just have "Reception" and in there include all kinds of reception, rather than compartmentalising them. To give a clear example, what if we did not have a criticism section but just had "Praise"? Would that be neutral? So I think it's pretty clear. I'll restore it to how it was until we discuss.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)