Talk:Circumlocution

POV?

"The great writer Charles Dickens"
138.243.228.52 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is doubted? It is challenged? Is is just somebody's opinion? "Great" may be unnecessary here, but "NPOV" does not stand for "No point-of-view. --Wetman 09:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly a point of view; some people may think Charles Dickens to be great, other people may not, and we shouldn't take sides, particularly when it's clearly unnecessary. Unless there's any objection, I'm going to remove the word. Fysidiko 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV or not, the word is pointless here - I've removed it AndrewWTaylor 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The word great is important to underline the weight of the statement. Not everyone who reads the article will be familiar with Mr. Dickens. For this reason, it is a valuable word. Imagine it read "Gerald Jones devoted a whole chapter of....' and you will understand this point. I suggest it is replaced, or changed to "the highly talented and renowned writer Charles Dickens" 60.50.122.108 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that not everyone is familiar with Charles Dickens is why there is a link to the article on Charles Dickens where his name is. --141.238.105.221 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"...some people may think Charles Dickens to be great, other people may not, and we shouldn't take sides..." Amazing! Where could one begin? This is a complete misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View that Wikipedia is aiming for. But it is quite a typical American one, unfortunately. --Wetman (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrogance, a typical European trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)