Talk:The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

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

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Objectivism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism

'Mixed reviews' vs. 'mostly positive reviews'

Could we have a discussion here on which is appropriate to describe the book's reviews? From the reviews I looked up, the majority appear to be positive; however, they seem to come from ideologically similar organizations. Any thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid original research, the ideal thing is to repeat an assessment from a neutral secondary source about the character of the reviews. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to be available anytime soon, if ever, for a book like this. (Maybe if Epstein becomes really famous, some future academic will write an overview of his works.) In the absence of that, we should be cautious. If the mix of reviews is really obvious as being overwhelmingly positive or overwhelmingly negative, then we could venture to state an overall direction. If it isn't that obvious, then the best thing is not to summarize it. Just say this review said X and that review said Y; or say these were positive reviews, those were negative reviews. Looks like something along those lines is the current state of the article (as of this posting). --RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks! —Michipedian (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]