This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 articles Conservatism Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Ponnuru points out that this shift coincided with the loss of a Democrat majority."

is this true or false? without citation this is misleading.. removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.237.65 ( talk • contribs)

Currently this article is in violation of NPOV as there are no critical articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.237.65 ( talk • contribs)

That's not true. 'A Frigid and Pitiless Dogma' has been there since 2006-06-19, when I added the reviews section. WP:NPOV means representing significant views objectively; and that's what I did. If you have more reviews (worthy of inclusion) please add them. Al001 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

All negative reviews are missing a decade later... 99.104.125.199 ( talk) 23:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

N.B. As per WP:NPOV I'm not proffering a personal opinion but a summary. Here is the sentence and its justification:

• Polemically titled - see polemic.
• and welcomed by some as being a rational and logical exposition - see The Party of Death#Reviews.
• on such right to life issues as abortion and euthanasia, - see the website for the book The Party of Death#External links for topics covered.
• its sensationalist stance tempts a dichotomy. - it's called 'The Party of Death...'. Again, see the website for the book for evidence of sensationalism. Finally, the book 'tempts a dichotomy' by attempting to absolutely split the issues it considers down party lines: 'Is the Democratic Party the “Party of Death”? If you look at their agenda they are.' Book Details - The Party of Death. Al001 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Conclusion you draw is overly complicated, and far from objective. You failed to provide source material in your actual edit, although I see you backed it up on this page. However, this is pure opinion and not information, and so does not belong. "Its' sensationalist stance tempts a dichotomy" is not an objective, informative sentence. People do not come to Wikipedia for opinion. I also moved the quote from the author into the reviews section, as a counterpoint to Derbyshire's accusation of a religious viewpoint in writing, instead of being in a section of its own. Smacked of amateurism. Agree with earlier statement, needs critical reviews. Is definitely not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mos bratrud ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply