Talk:Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Personal blog, anonymous source

The section titled "New York Times Christians/Nazis controversy" has only one source, a post on "World O'Crap," the personal blog of an anonymous person identified only as "Scott C." The use of such a blog as a source, particularly in an article about a living person, is a violation of WP:BLOGS. This section has therefore been removed.71.126.189.217 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

What, no positive reviews? Unless there are none, it hardly seems wiki to me. - Anonymous

I feel that the review section of this article is more to show the controversy over factual errors in the book. It's not really to list reviews, good or bad. Wikipedia shouldn't have book reviews just for fun, but only if there is a notable reason for them. Kushboy 07:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried hard to find one, but failed. You may find something positive by a user on Amazon.com, but these are normally attached only to a username. Would this suffice? --Saerain 16:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slander75.jpeg

Image:Slander75.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reviews"

The FAIR review adresses name-calling, which is as trivial as any other review.

The "factual inaccuracy" section does not address specific "factual inaccuracies" and the citiation, being a political blog, does not meet wiki standards.

The entire section as it stands is biased against the book. Techn0scho0lbus 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC) techn0scho0lbus aug.1.2007

• I'm going to reinstate the section removed but change it to "criticisms and controversies" since it is not about actual reviews, but more about criticisms and controversies. I think that it is fair to have this section because the FAIR article goes further than just addressing name calling, and because name calling is notable since the book is titled Slander and therefore seems relevant. Also, the factual inaccuracy section does in fact address specific factual inaccuracies. It addresses many specific ones, referring to actual page numbers and quoting from the book directly. It is important to note such things in this article. I'd be happy to speak further with you about this, or anyone else who disagrees. Kushboy 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the FAIR review has the same function: it is a biased review, and it is as trivial as any other review. We could just as easily give a review that praises Coulter's name calling, and it would be just as trivial. The only non-trivial thing the FAIR review has to offer is the content of the book, which can easily be given under the quote section without the added commentary. Take off this biased review. It has no place here.

And no, the factual inaccuracy section does not address any factual inaccuracies. This is it currently:

The Daily Howler ran an extensive series of articles in July, 2002 documenting Coulter's "problem with the truth" (July 10). They checked many of her extensive footnotes to find "bald-faced dissembling" (July 11) and "misleading examples" (July 15) from the beginning to end (July 23).

This does not give anything specific, but instead references a political blog. The whole paragraph simply reiterates the thoughts and conclusions from the political blog. More importantly the theme of the paragraph rests on added content from the political blog, which is a source that does not meet wiki standards! Take this down!

There is a difference between saying a book has numerous factual errors and then linking a blog and simply listing alleged factual errors, unless the paragraph's relervance stems from the controversy in which case it should be removed because of the citation!

Good alternatives would be, if we are drawing attention to factual inaccuracies, to actually point some out and hopefully cite from the book (maybe with an appropriate title of "factual inaccuracies"), OR, if we are talking about controversy surrounding the book or facts from the book, then we could cite something better than a political blog.

This entire section is currently trivial and biased. 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Techn0scho0lbus Aug.2.2007

• I rephrased the beginning of that section to make sure people understand the nature of FAIR, but beyond that I'm just don't fully agree with you. I do understand what your point is, though. Here's the thing: the article or "review" is being quoted in this Wikipedia article because it mentions the many criticisms of the book, and irony/hypocrisy employed by Coulter. It then footnotes the article. I read the article and I don't think it's really a "review" of the book, but a factual essay on the book. I'm sure it can be seen as biased, but the quote in this article is not biased, and that's the part we need to worry about. We can't control the neutrality of the source, but only of the part of the source we use.

Another way of putting it is that we should not link to a real review of the book. We should not reference a review, good or bad, of the book, but only factual essays and articles. What you should do to make this article even better, is to find a similar essay/article that defends Coulter. An article that uses facts that prove the criticisms wrong.

The fact is, however, that Coulter's book has been proven to use lies and deception, and it is important for Wikipedia to point that out.

I understand if you further disagree. Please open up a case of arbitration or third opinion and I'll be happy to comply.

Kushboy 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• So FAIR is biased. That alone makes it not up to wiki standards as a citation, and what was posted here was a review of the book, which could just as easily and trivially been praise. Overall, this is just a partisan political blog labeling some quotes as hypocritical. That's it. Anything beyond a naked quote is likely giving criticism or a review, which if not trivial (and this is) needs to be properly cited.

Also, what is written about the FAIR blog does not mention other criticisms like you suggest. The only criticisms posted here were from the FAIR article itself about the name-calling, so the reference has no other purpose here than to offer it's own criticism as a political blog!

This section does not belong here.

Then, the insinuation about 'factual inaccuracies' made both in the article and here currently only has the political blog as its source, which is not valid. If you insist on including paragraphs devoted to exposing 'factual inaccuracies,' then actually point some out and cite them! We cannot insinuate and then link a political blog.

This paragraph cannot stay here as-is.

Also, I will not post biased reviews with biased citations to counteract other biases. That's silly. Please don't suggest it again --Techn0scho0lbus 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Whatev, man. It's not that big a deal. I told you to just open up some kind of arbitration. I understand what you're saying, but you don't have to be rude. Just keep an open mind, as will I. I don't think they're biased, but maybe they are, so I'd suggest finding a better citation. Find something not-biased that shows her factual inaccuracies if you're going to be the one to discredit the ones that were already in the article. I'll keep the section removed, but I will open this up for further comments to the rest of the Wikipedia community. Kushboy 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Third opinion. Unfortunately, the political blog is probably not a reliable source. Luckily enough, a quick google seach reveals plenty of reviews that can be cited, including ones about criticisms ([1] [2]) and fact-checking ([3]). Incorporating these and others from the search into the article will expand it with good, cited information. Any questions, feel free to talk me. —  Scottjar  → Talk 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Ha! As expected

...this article is about 80% criticism. Gotta love Wikipedia. No Liberal bias here...just keep moving along. ha ha ha. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823201135/http://www.editorandpublisher.com:80/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002763918 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002763918

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)