Talk:Reasons to Vote for Democrats

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reasons to Vote for Democrats article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 23 February 2018, see discussion.
Keep, 19 July 2017, see discussion.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Gerald WL 14:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Gerald WL 06:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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