Talk:From Bauhaus to Our House
POV tag
The "Critical response" section falls far short of compliance with Wikipedia:Neutrality. It very obviously reflects an assumption that pro-modernists are intellectually and culturally superior, and that their opponents are ignorant people who do not deserve respect. Beorhtric (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I utterly fail to see any statement even possibly implying such assumptions. Care to be more precise? Circeus (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is in almost every line:
- Why is the viewpoint of the architectural establishment given priority? Of course they were hostile. Would you expect a positive response to a book attacking organised crime from the Mafia?
- Hilton refuted "some" of Wolfe's points? Why only emphasise the disagreements? Why imply that Wolfe's style (which has made him one of the most praised journalists alive?) invalidates his arguments?
- Why is it relevant that architecture was moving away from modernism to post-modernism? Wolfe was attacking modernism. This paragraph is an attempt to move the discussion away from the actual subject of the book.
- Why choose patronising phrasing like "conceded that the book was, at the least, well-written". Wolfe is a famous prose stylist, so this is hardly a surprise. (I wonder how well written pro-modernist texts may be, and whether modernists would consider poor prose in a modernist text a damning criticism of modernist architecture?)
- Why use the grudging word "conceded" in relation to concessions to Wolfe, when there is nothing grudging about the language in which attacks on him are reported.