Talk:Blade for Barter

Advert?

This entire article reads like an advertisment rather than an encyclopedic article. It need a serious rewrite or it may be nominated for deletion. As I've never heard of it, I would not be a good one to do this. --nihon 06:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it is because you have not heard of it that it reads that way. You have to know what you are talking about (which you admit to not doing) before you pass judgement. Learn about this manga first then say if this is an advertisment second which you might not after reading it. If I were to pass judgement on other articles I have seen on here without knowing what they are talking about then there are a lot I would say are ads and probably be dead wrong about, it has been cleaned up nonetheless. However I am a bit concerned that you thought it read as an advertisement. I've seen a lot of entries in paper bound encyclopedias that, if you still consider this to have been an advertisment, are much more advertisments and yet are put in the encyclopedia because they are in reality merely very descriptive of styles and artworks about that which is being discussed in the entry. Ryokosha 04:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read plenty of articles about unfamiliar topics that didn't sound like advertisments. This one sounds like it's trying to sell the manga rather than tell about the manga in an objective way. See WP:NPOV for more information. --nihon 05:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But you imply you have read others that did sound like it that also weren't advertisments. I've read that link and I see certain things in it that don't make sense but that is not for discussion here; if people wanted to sell they wouldn't be so indirect, they would say buy now or something. All I see, is something that is more descriptive in various ways then people might like and therefore suddenly becomes an advertisment. Rule one of life there is no neutral point of view, we are all bias in one way or another and all carry that into what we say and do in daily life. In discussions there cannot be neutrality or nothing would get done nor can there be neutrality in things like articles or they would all be a title and nothing more. It is a great concept on paper, or on screen in this case, but it is an impossibility in reality, nuetrality does not exist beyond an entry in a dictionary. At any rate I still think you are looking at something that is descriptive in a way other entries are not and misinterperting that to mean this is an advertisment. Ryokosha 05:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs appear to be taken from the publisher; and anything from the publisher will try to portray the subject positively. It could be rewritten, either that or it needs to be cited as from the publisher.Spyderchan 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)